…and this is a 
There is lots of video on the web from our visit to Ken Ham's Palace of Lies, but here's one of one of the rare incidents to mar the trip. This is the student who was kicked out; I was with him when he was pulled aside, and can verify that he was doing nothing but engaging in quiet conversation with a small group of us godless atheists when Mark Looy arbitrarily singled him out and took him aside to tell him stories about how unruly he had been. It was genuinely bizarre. As you can see in the clip made as we were standing outside, there was no shouting, no disruption, no rudeness at all going on — they simply plucked Derek out of the group and told him he was a bad boy.
Not shown is the other stuff that went on at the same time. While Looy had Derek off to the side, their head of security hovered about and tried to interpose himself between Looy and all the cameras aimed at him…an impossibility, since there was a whole arc of watchful atheists around them. At one point he gestured to one of the uniformed guards and sent him to escort one attendee with a large, high-quality video camera off the premises — this happened to be a fellow who was there making a documentary about atheists, who had been careful to not directly participate and who was certainly not wearing any godless apparel. The creationists are certainly brilliant at PR, aren't they?
I can say that all of the atheists were well behaved and civil, that the only behavior the museum staff could possibly have complained about is that we engaged in quiet criticism, and that the only bad behavior was by people like Looy and the noticeably edgy security guards, who we could tell were looking for an excuse to throw all the people laughing at their joke of a "museum" out. I think Derek was simply their chosen sacrificial lamb, used as an excuse to vent their failed expectations for a ferocious confrontation.
One last irony: after expelling a few of our people for imaginary infractions, Looy came up to me with their photographer to ask to take my picture, presumably to put on Ken Ham's blog. I let him, of course, but I expect they'll also use it to let their security know who I am, in case I should make future invasions. (Which is not likely, by the way. I think I got enough.)
Comments
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 8, 2009 9:05 AM
I got thrown out of the creationist musuem in Portsmouth, UK once. All for pointing out to them they had missed out the second part of Darwin's quote about the eye. I even gave them a copy of Origins so they could check it out for themselves. They threw the book out after me.
Posted by: Annie | August 8, 2009 9:05 AM
I cannot fathom the rank stupidity of these people. Until this visit and all of the resultant pics, I had no real concept of the blatant untruths being foisted on the innocent and easily bewildered. Thank you for shining a light on this museum so called.
Their pathetic attempt at retribution of the godless was just as pathetic as their museum, so called.
just sad and very, very depressing.
Posted by: dkew | August 8, 2009 9:07 AM
I can't make out much of anything on the video - they could be discussing their golf game.
Posted by: tsig | August 8, 2009 9:08 AM
Did they refund his money?
Posted by: Muzz | August 8, 2009 9:09 AM
I find it terribly symbolic that the walls are green; as if to say they can overlay any context they please on reality.
I hope the whole place was like that.
Posted by: DavidCT | August 8, 2009 9:09 AM
It is always interesting to see the moral behavior of believers. Why is it that so many Christians just aren't?
Posted by: weaves | August 8, 2009 9:10 AM
it was to be expected. he probably blinked to many times or looked confused at something
Posted by: ernie | August 8, 2009 9:11 AM
The guy who made a documentary on atheists, was he one of them...?
Posted by: Eliza | August 8, 2009 9:12 AM
Matt Penfold #1:
There's a creation museum in Portsmouth? Seriously?! I had no idea.
Naughty Derek, huh. Imagine - wearing offensive clothes! That only started after the Fall, y'no.
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 8, 2009 9:14 AM
Worthless scum. If it was up to me every one of those magical-creation-museum assholes would be put in prison for child abuse and excessive stupidity.
Posted by: Bill McElree | August 8, 2009 9:15 AM
They had to do something. After all you committed the one unpardonable sin: You pointed out their willful ignorance.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 8, 2009 9:17 AM
Hey, gang, FDL's got Chris Mooney coming over for a Book Salon today from 5-7 pm Eastern (4-6 pm Central, 2-4 pm Pacific). He's here to discuss his new book Unscientific America, which is about the conditions in America that allow anti-science attitudes and hucksters to flourish. Stop by to witness at www.firedoglake.com, and register (it's free) if you want to chat with Chris.
From the book's blurb:
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 8, 2009 9:19 AM
Eliza,
Yeap, down by the Historic Dockyard. There website is here
Posted by: Omphaloskepsis | August 8, 2009 9:20 AM
Just imagine of a real museum did something like this to someone wearing a "Jesus is Love" t-short. Oh, the horror!
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | August 8, 2009 9:20 AM
Actually, the museum people seemed to behave themselves better than one would have expected from immoral theists.
Posted by: BobH | August 8, 2009 9:27 AM
Matt Penfold #13 - Is it just me, or is that dino on the website a spitting image of Barney?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 8, 2009 9:29 AM
I am not really familiar with Barney.
Posted by: Camels With Hammers | August 8, 2009 9:31 AM
How did you know about the atheism documentary being made? Is this a project that might wind up widely released? Have you had other contact with this guy? Is he coming to the Secular Student Alliance conference?
I can't believe the idea of a documentary about atheists sounds so novel to me but it does.
Posted by: XD | August 8, 2009 9:33 AM
@#12
A new book you say? I'd not heard of that. Sounds fascinating!
By the way, does anyone know what Sheryl's Ph.D. was in?
Posted by: maddogdelta | August 8, 2009 9:34 AM
I keep getting promised by the christers that there were naked atheist lesbians masturbating with bibles there.... And PZ keeps disappointing me with REALITY!!
Posted by: ian | August 8, 2009 9:38 AM
You shouldn't make fun of these people. It is their job to make a mockery of themselves. For you to mock them for nothing is tantamount to socialism... and you know where that leads. (in case you didn't know, it leads to godlessness. you guys are killing God with your so-called jokes and you are going straight to hell, which, by the way, isn't as fragile as God's ego so don't think you get to be homeless in the afterlife.)
Posted by: Armand K. | August 8, 2009 9:45 AM
Obviously, they took a picture of you so they can throw you out if you ever think of accompanying Richard Dawkins on a visit at the "museum"... while letting him in, of course.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 8, 2009 9:46 AM
#19
I think it is part of a trilogy. We already have Unscientific America and Unartistic America.
The last one will be Unfunny America and include a chapter on how the modern atheists are ruining comedy clubs by not being kinder, gentler souls like that great Comedic diplomat, George Carlin.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 8, 2009 9:46 AM
This sounds like the sort of thing you'd expect from the Scientologists...
Posted by: SpontOrder | August 8, 2009 9:48 AM
Ian #21, very funny. There is an especially hot corner of hell for us scoffers and mockers.
I don't know where next year's meeting is but if you pick New Mexico you could take in the Roswell UFO experience museum. Just as much science.
Posted by: Kane148 | August 8, 2009 9:50 AM
As much as it sucks for the kid that got singled out like that, it's probably for the best in the long run, for it shows just how fearful and repressive these creationist thugs are. They've shown for years that they can't handle intellectual debate, and now they've shown that they can't handle some people peacefully critiquing their "museum." One can only imagine what they would have done had one of your group dared to stand up to security...
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | August 8, 2009 9:51 AM
@ Matt Penfold:
You have no idea how fortunate you are...Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 8, 2009 9:54 AM
She has not got one. She has a Master's in Marine Biology.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 8, 2009 9:55 AM
Kane148
Sucks? Heck no. That kid gets bragging rights. He gets to say stuff like: "I went to the creation museum with PZ Myers, the guy they expelled from Expelled, and I was the one they were afraid of!"
Posted by: vjack | August 8, 2009 9:56 AM
I'd think they would be perfectly content to take the money of atheists. After all, trips like this probably help them stay in business, right?
Posted by: ChrisKG | August 8, 2009 10:01 AM
This reminds me of architect sketch by Monty Python. I would have loved to hear this at the museum: (edited for PZ)
"Yes, well, of course, this is just the sort blinkered philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome, spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss about the struggling [biologist]. (shouting) You excrement! You lousy hypocritical whining toadies with your lousy colour TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs and your bleeding masonic handshakes! You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastards. Well I wouldn't become a [Chritian] now if you went down on your lousy, stinking, purulent knees and begged me." -Monty Python
Or, maybe the kid is just a sinner worthy of eternal torment?
Posted by: Dave | August 8, 2009 10:03 AM
Personally I don't see how any of you managed to last as long in there as you did :(
@Bruce #29 :D
Posted by: dorcheat | August 8, 2009 10:05 AM
Did anybody notice that Derek and Mark Looy were standing in front of a "chroma key" (the green screen). Also note the footprint marks on the floor for a broadcaster to position themselves during a television segment.
Chroma keys are used especially by television broadcast meteorologists to graphically display themselves along with weather maps, satellite imagery loops, weather radar imagery loops, and other video.
For further information, bow to the Wiki and follow the hyperlink below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromakey
Posted by: Tosh | August 8, 2009 10:07 AM
There has to be a legal remedy. We dont hear of the Smithsonian or the Museum of Natural History removing groups of creationist because they disagree. And creationists do conduct tour groups to rebutt evolution. Obviously creationists cannot stand the scrutiny of public opinion. The CM is a private park, but I most certainly make them prove disorderly or disruptive conduct. This is litigation waiting to happen.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | August 8, 2009 10:08 AM
Tangential note:
Back in the day my older nephew got into big trouble for telling the younger one that Barney ate the children after each episode.
No one likes their childhood fantasy world intruded upon by reality.
Posted by: Puck | August 8, 2009 10:08 AM
They obviously had plans to kick someone out from the beginning. But they were scared to do it too soon. You know y'all scared the hell out of them just being there, no way were they going to kick someone out right off, and have a building full of rioting atheists. (never mind that it's the 'godly' that are the dangerous ones, not atheists)
So the chicken shits waited until the last minute to show how courageous they are, and how 'bad' the atheists were that they had to kick them out of the building. Trust that they will make a large deal out of it. It was all for future blustering rights.
Is hate too strong a word for these creeps?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 8, 2009 10:13 AM
ChrisKG @ # 31: ... maybe the kid is just a sinner worthy of eternal torment?
Aren't we all?
Posted by: matt | August 8, 2009 10:18 AM
i'm guessing the creation museum earned about $6000 off of the visit
Posted by: Sili | August 8, 2009 10:22 AM
Oooh. Is it gonna be any good? Where can we see it?They took your picture? Did you make sure they didn't get a lock of your hair and/or some nailclippings while they were at it? Make sure to tell of if you suddenly start feeling sharp pains.
Posted by: csrster | August 8, 2009 10:23 AM
I thought Tom Estes promised to act as your guardian angel to make sure none of you were harrassed by the museum authorities. So where was he while all this was going on?
Posted by: E.V. | August 8, 2009 10:24 AM
Was that Darwin over PZ's right shoulder in the expelled video? No, not on the T-shirt - the bearded guy. He looks great for someone who's been dead for over a century.
Posted by: PaulJ | August 8, 2009 10:27 AM
Matt Penfold #13
If 200 people turned up at Portsmouth's Genesis Expo, they'd have to close the doors. It's tiny. The best(?) thing about it is the bookshop. But although creationists continually argue that we should "teach the controversy" and "teach both sides", Richard Dawkins' books (for example) are conspicuous by their absence.
(For further details see the report on my own visit.)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 8, 2009 10:32 AM
Nice write up on your visit PaulJ. I note you picked up on the quote-mining of Darwin on the eye. They got most upset with me when I asked them why they had left of the second part of the quote.
Posted by: Jason | August 8, 2009 10:48 AM
I was there. It was kind of anti-climatic but it was worth the 10 bucks to hang out with PZ. Anyway we left at 1PM and came back at 3PM for the insane talk entitled - "Ape-Men: The Grand Illusion". The speaker was Dr Terry Mortenson who according to the flyer had a "Ph.D" in Geology and a Masters of Divinity. I assume he got the former degree out of a cracker jack box or someting. It was held in the Special Effects Theater but the only thing special about the presentation was it's complete lack of truth. Unfortunately the speaker was effective in telling lies to his mostly sheep audience. Anytime the good doctor would make a point related to the big man in the sky, there was this lady in the audience who would echo out "Amen".
The "lecture" itself was of course typical creationist bullshit. He had two buckets, one for apes and one for humans. Did you know that Homo Erectus was a fully modern human and that Lucy was not in fact bipedal? The good doctor had all the latest scientific research at hand (1922, 1982) and plenty of artist drawings.
He focussed on Piltdown man and other frauds. The professor said "There is no evidence that we evolved from Apes" - at which point I said "Please". The real kicker for me was the slide at the end where he talked about what "we call black men" [his words] and which they showed how reason leads to racism. They used this image in the 'reason is racist' slide - http://www.faithalone.com/ape-man-e.jpg
The image of a dirty teeth half-man half-chimp had lines pointing to images of "negroids" and "aborigines" - their words, not mine.
The irony of course is that the creation museum is itself a racist institution and they are the ones who like the Nazis use Propaganda to influence the weak minded to believe lies. By even showing this picture in a slide - it's clear proof of their racism and their stupidity. I suppose that one day a black man sitting in the audience is not going to take kindly to the slide and may ultimately have to be escorted from the premises.
At the end of the talk, the doctor spent about 15 minutes trying to sell books and DVDs. Why else does the creation museum exist except to make Ken Ham money? At one point the doctor made a funny... "People ask me all the time which one book should I get... Well I say should you get these eight." For the low low price of $69 you can help put Ken Ham behind the wheel of a new corvette today.
By the way, no Q&A was allowed in the special effects theater. How appropriate and how ironic - it was all smoke and mirrors... The part that makes me angry is that the kids and the sheep in the audience didn't realize it was all a big show and that nothing the doctor said was actually true or real. I would guess that most of these people believed every word - hook, line and sinker. Cha-cha ching...
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | August 8, 2009 10:54 AM
You're a baaaad boy Abbott!
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 8, 2009 10:56 AM
i love this stuff.
Posted by: Ian | August 8, 2009 10:58 AM
I have just discovered that the UK has a creation museum, albeit on a MUCH smaller scale, located in Portsmouth. http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/. Still, it is as rediculous as any place that claims the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Posted by: hje | August 8, 2009 10:58 AM
The only downside to the expedition is that Ham is the richer. This is always about money, though they vehemently deny it. AiG would not exist for long without a never-ending revenue stream from gullible Christians. Ham's just a 21st century snake oil salesman, one in a long line of hucksters willing and able to separate fools from their money.
Posted by: Country Crock | August 8, 2009 11:02 AM
Instead of Christian or atheist, I wonder what their reaction would be if you wore a t-shirt promoting MORMON or JEHOVAH'S WITNESS? I wonder what their reaction would be to that?
Posted by: pikeamus | August 8, 2009 11:03 AM
Did you guys go and flip off the guy with the sign right after this? That would have been pretty hilarious, nearly 300 atheists that had been well mannered all day walking out of the "museum" and flipping a guy off. :D
Posted by: Steve in MI | August 8, 2009 11:11 AM
Derek was the LAST person in that entire building would could be called "unruly". I stood with him in the Irreducible Complexity room for about 10 minutes while he was chatted with a True Believer about our visit. He was lucid, accurate, and above all, PATIENT under some intense questioning from the theist. I stopped to watch because I was so impressed with the kind and respectful way in which Derek was engaging the fellow; the content could have been lifted directly from the Dawkins and CWA/Wendy video that was posted a few days ago, but Derek's tone and approach lacked any hint of confrontational tone.
The only odd bit about the conversation I watched was the way the theist ended it. After ten minutes of some of the most rational discourse you could imagine, the theist made it clear to Derek that he (the theist) STILL felt like he was being made fun of. The theist (and apparently some of the group he was with) felt like our very presence - our willingness to question their worldview - was inherently an act of mocking. It was an odd moment, because the theist was clearly walking away from the conversation with an impression that was entirely opposite from the content of the conversation.
Derek really was the last person I would imagine being singled out for expulsion. Derek, if you read this, WELL DONE. Your only crime was being an articulate, respectful spokeman for the scientific community.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | August 8, 2009 11:15 AM
Let me get this straight. They threw him out of the place while he was leaving? Did they shout "And stay out!" too?
If I had to guess, wearing that t-shirt was the disruptive behavior. When you encounter a thought you've been suppressing as hard as you can, it is usually very disruptive.
Posted by: Stacy | August 8, 2009 11:16 AM
What a good looking group!
Posted by: Mark Looy | August 8, 2009 11:20 AM
PZ:
From your headline to your main points today, you were horribly wrong.
First I did not “arbitrarily” single out the student “and took him aside to tell him stories about how unruly he had been.” If you had bothered to ask me what had happened (we did meet after the incident in question), which a careful researcher would do so that both sides could be heard before drawing a conclusion, you would have discovered that indeed this young man had been disruptive -– his protests to the contrary --on at least two occasions inside the museum before my final encounter with him and he was thus not arbitrarily picked out of the bunch.
Furthermore, he was NOT expelled, as your headline blared.
Let me give you the full background as to why we approached the student.
It was at the Triceratops model that our security chief had a run-in with him. He asked the student to turn his atheist T-shirt inside out (it had wording on it similar to what has been seen on atheist bus campaigns declaring that there is no God -- and the words “NO GOD” were in big letters on the T-shirt). He went away and did so, but returned and proceeded to argue with our security chief about why the wording was deemed offensive. I arrived at that time, and noticed that while he was not angry, he was defensive (he said that he could see why a pedophile T-shirt might be offensive, but not this one) and aggressive in the questioning of our security officer. The officer patiently listened to the young man.
Then about 5-10 minutes later, this same young man was in the bookstore upstairs. He was standing with you and about 10 people with your SSA group, and I stopped to hear what was being said because you were being filmed at the time. This young man stated, in a voice that could be heard beyond the 10 people, that “he was not about to spend another penny in this place” (or words quite similar). I asked him to keep his voice down, and he looked at me quizzically and asked me what was wrong. Once again, he was defensive and what I would call smart-alecky -– in a crowded bookstore.
Just a few minutes later I was at our FX photo desk, where I met a father and mother -- with their young son and daughter -- who had expressed some frustration with me that their visit was marred by the mockers inside the museum (though their visit was not “ruined”). They said they were hoping to explain some of the significance of the exhibits to their children, but the laughing and mocking by some in the SSA group nearby was a distraction to their children, and this family felt their visit was not what it could have been (a 16-hour round-trip drive). I apologized to them, and offered free tickets for their next visit and left them my card.
As this conversation was going on, the student who gave us those hassles in the bookstore and at the dinosaur model happended to walk by. I stopped him -– not “arbitrarily,” for he was quite well known to us by this time -- and asked him to step over to the photo desk and away from the others. I told him that the unruliness of his group -– him included -- was keeping our guests from enjoying their time, and I motioned over to the family from Virginia, explaining how their visit was disrupted The young man leaned over and (to his credit) apologized to the family -- who were standing a few feet away -- for being disruptive.
I said to him that he was out of chances now -- that the next disturbance would lead to his being ushered out of the museum. It was his last warning, I said. He said that he was leaving the museum any way, so there would be no further issue with him. I did not have a security person remove him (as is our procedure for instances when we tell someone to leave). He was definitely not expelled -– it is simply a lie to claim otherwise. I clearly told him at the photo desk that he was receiving his last warning.
Regarding the one true expulsion, I point out that our operations director (not our security head, as you wrote), Dan Mangus, saw much of what went on with the Virginia family, the student, and me, and explained in a report about what happened next, and which led to someone being expelled from the museum:
“When you addressed the young man, a gentleman stepped from the mob to try to film the action and listen in. I stepped in front of his camera and informed him it was a private conversation. He kept sidestepping me and being rude about it, like I didn’t exist, so I motioned for an officer to escort him away. Our officer said: ‘Sir, will you come with me?’ The photographer said nothing; he just followed him. Nothing else was said. He escorted him to the crosswalk. That’s when he made the comment to the other officer that he hadn’t done anything.”
One person -– the rude videographer who failed to comply -- was ushered out, not the student in your story.
I hope you will post a clarification –- if you wish to maintain any semblance of being a careful researcher. --
Mark Looy
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave | August 8, 2009 11:29 AM
Really? This is hardly a big deal. One guy out of 400 visiting on a lone day got kicked out of a private amusement park that tells lies to people weekly all year. I feel sorry for the lad (he probably missed out on a few jokes inside) and it's a slightly amusing side note for a mythology hut to create a martyr for the atheist causes, but it seems like some of you may be too invested in your umbrage at the theists. I mean, this is a blip on the radar: save your bile for the myriad other sins they perpetrate and rejoice in the fact that it was the atheists who not only took the moral high ground, they turned the other cheek.
I thank all atheists that took part and showed us in a good light.
Posted by: DaveL | August 8, 2009 11:34 AM
You find this offensive?
Yet atheists in America are supposed to put up with "In God We Trust" on our currency?
Take a good look at your own privilege and thicken your skin, in whatever order you wish.
Posted by: Edward Lark | August 8, 2009 11:37 AM
Mark - It is funny how your own description of the event, which is undoubtedly written so as to pose you and the museum in the most favorable light, actually works to prop up PZ's characterization of the event. Your own words make you appear petty, petulant, overbearing and completely clueless. (Your offense at the kid's statement - "in a voice that could be heard beyond the 10 people" - that he wasn't going to spend any more money in the museum gift shop, is particularly telling.)
So let me get this straight. The "museum" exists to provide "scientific truth" to counter all the lies that evolution non-deniers spread, but you don't want people to disagree with the museum to attend in the first place? (Or, if they do, they should be "respectful" - meaning, be quiet, don't challenge the museum's assertions, just nod and smile as they walk through and - heaven forbid - certainly don't discourage the rubes from spending money in the gift shop.)
Sir, I don't think you understand what respect means. And may I add, cordially, and for the record. Fuck you and the dino you rode in on.
Posted by: Guy Incognito | August 8, 2009 11:38 AM
How strong is your faith if it can't stand up to the onslaught of a fucking slogan on a T-shirt? Move mountains, my ass.
Posted by: hje | August 8, 2009 11:40 AM
"apologized to them, and offered free ticket."
Why aren't the tickets always free (instead of $21.95/adult) when this is a not-for-profit ministry?
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 8, 2009 11:42 AM
The expelled reference in PZ's title is an in joke and does not reflect the actual article.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 8, 2009 11:45 AM
Mr Looy,
Let me get this straight. A young man who complied with your request to remove his T-shirt, "was not angry, (but) he was defensive", who APOLOGIZED to the family you said he offended - is considered disruptive merely because he asked for an explanation why his shirt was offensive and said “he was not about to spend another penny in this place”.
Basing my opinion entirely on your version of events, you have just embarrassed yourself and your organization.
Posted by: Kook curious | August 8, 2009 11:49 AM
I'm considering becoming a godless freethinker, 'cause who doesn't want to be superior to everyone else, right?
But this clip has me conflicted.
Is it mandatory for all freethinkers to look like colon swabs, or is it just a coincidence?
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 8, 2009 11:52 AM
Kook - if you have to ask permission to dress properly then you cannot, by definition be a free thinker. Grow a pair.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 8, 2009 11:54 AM
Oh, my, but this is just... too... pretty! Do let us please gaze with amusement upon how the wiggly little weasel* doth contrive to convict himself with his own words...
I mean, ah yes... See, this troublemaker did wilfully and knowingly refuse to turn his shirt inside out! And... omigosh! Contested the opinion of a hired guard and/or other patrons that it was offensive!
... and wait, there's more! He did wilfully and knowingly state that he was disinterested in purchasing certain merchandise! Loud enough to be heard!
... and ah yes, and he was 'defensive'! Shocking! How clearly 'disruptive' this is! He was 'defensive' after being told by the rent-a-cop to turn his shirt inside out! Look! Right there! He's being defensive! Shock! He's guilty, guilty, guilty obviously!
And of course, therefore, clearly a troublemaker... Can't have that, obviously... It's so clear this action was justified...
Erm... but... wait. See, it's a funny thing, y'know... Now that you mention it, Looy sounds kinda 'defensive' here, himself...
Well, then, obviously, he's guilty too! And being disruptive! That swine! Get 'im outta the blog!
(/Yeah, that's right, pal. Walk.)
*As always, no offense is intended to any actual Mustelids present. It's just an idiom. And no, we would never call any of you a 'Looy'...
Posted by: Zbu | August 8, 2009 11:54 AM
I'm surprised that an organization claiming to be a museum (with a free exchange of ideas) was so threatened by a t-shirt. Are you telling me that your whole museum can be threatened by a single t-shirt?
I apologize to you, sir. I'm sorry your belief systems are rooted in guilt and shame and are so easily toppled by a mere t-shirt. I would go further and explain how wrong and silly this is, but I doubt you would do anything constructive about it outside of quote mining and taking my words out of context to fit your narrow views of the world.
Posted by: Guy Incognito | August 8, 2009 11:55 AM
Basing my opinion entirely on your version of events, you have just embarrassed yourself and your organization.
Seriously. Prof. Myers could have saved himself a little time and just let Mark Looy guest-blog his version of the incident. To paraphrase the saying, with enemies like these, who needs friends?
Posted by: ObSciGuy | August 8, 2009 11:57 AM
I was there yesterday as well, and heard that they normally had significantly more docents around to answer questions and interpret displays... can anyone who has been there before AND was there yesterday confirm or refute this???
Another story to add: Apparently someone from a cable access show was there filming, and at one point filmed a young lady asking a docent some questions. After filming about a minute of the conversation, the docent expressed she was uncomfortable being filmed, so the videographer turned off her camera and put it down.
Later, presumably after the docent had told security about the incident, two security guards pulled her aside near the entrance to the dinosaur exhibit, looked over the video, and having established there was nothing wrong, let her and the rest of the folks continue on their way. The seemed pretty polite about it from what I saw.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 8, 2009 11:58 AM
Hee hee... Oh wait... It gets better?
He did turn it inside out? But expressed the opinion this was an unreasonable request?
Shocking. Oh, my, yeah... That guy's a danger to public safety if ever there was one... I can so see how the museum people hadda do what they did...
(/Geez, Looy... are ya still shaking? That musta been a scary momen fer ya... Poor guy.)
Posted by: foolfodder | August 8, 2009 11:58 AM
Oh noes. Not defensive and smart-alecky. In a bookstore. Get me my fainting couch STAT!
Posted by: Richard | August 8, 2009 12:01 PM
@Mark,
Your version pretty well supports what PZ said.
Apparently the guy's group wasn't doing anything disruptive (or you would have spoken to the group) when you spoke to the individual. So, you pulled him aside to tell him that you'd warned him in the past, and he should keep leaving?
As far as if you asked him to leave, or merely caused him to offer to leave, that sounds like a plausible misinterpretation.
We could know exactly what was said, but your staff the conversation from being recorded.
But, given that you, apparently, didn't want what you were saying to be recorded, your account seems less credible than the other guys.
Posted by: Kook curious | August 8, 2009 12:02 PM
Thanks Aphid. Then I guess the only thing left between me and freethinking is an 800 mile drive to find something I can mock and feel superior to.
What is the zip code of Morris, MN?
Posted by: Helene | August 8, 2009 12:02 PM
Just viewed the video. Derek, you seem like a nice, intelligent and articulate young man. I hope your parents are proud of you.
Posted by: ERV | August 8, 2009 12:08 PM
... Thats the best youve got, Looney?
LOL! LOSER! LOOOOOOSER! LOOOL!
Posted by: Kook curious | August 8, 2009 12:08 PM
Ouch! That was pretty harsh, Helene
Posted by: whitedevilbrewco | August 8, 2009 12:09 PM
WOW that Derek is a troublemaker! Talking above a whisper, wearing t-shirts, THINKING for God's sake! Good job ejecting him Mark, you do your people proud. Can't have slogans and polite conversation running around all amok.
Posted by: Donalbain | August 8, 2009 12:09 PM
Genius! Poe strikes again!
He said that would not spend more money.
He laughed.
He wore a T Shirt that said he did not believe in a god.
Imagine what would happen if a Christian was told he could not wear a creationist t shirt in the Smithsonian...
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 8, 2009 12:10 PM
...Wow. When your unruliest man is just a dude with a t-shirt and a guy with a camera, you can say you got a boring life of unruliness.
Did they start beating the drums about how RUDE JERKS you guys were yet?
Posted by: Afterthought | August 8, 2009 12:12 PM
A KOOK says:
Google is your friend. BTW, you might want to try being a touch less condescending while you are accusing others of being condescending as it tends to register on the hypocrisy meter, ya know?Posted by: juno | August 8, 2009 12:14 PM
i was there yesterday. what an adventure! and what a pack of lies...i was disappointed that we could not all go through as one big group and laugh quietly together.
but this is the main issue--i kinda got the impression that the BELIEVERS that were in the building were "warned" about us and told to report any disturbances. several of THEM gave us looks like we had sprouted horns. there were also ONES who intentionally tried to hear the private conversations that we were having amongst ourselves. i did find it very disturbing in the "arc" room, when i heard a father TRYING to explain what was going on to his son, and the son says "but daddy, didnt the dinosaurs EAT the other animals on the boat?" the father quickly pointed out another display--even he didnt know how to answer that one!
also did anyone notice the dinos that were in the parade in the mini scale model...that one was really funny!!!!
also in re to #33: that screen was there to have pictures made as you entered the "museum", i watched as a group had theirs made.
the photographer told them to put your feet by the ones painted on the floor and look up and smile, then he said okay now look up and act scared....no doubt their god was put into one picture and a ferocious cabbage eating dino was put into the other....hope they mixed them up!
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 8, 2009 12:16 PM
but Kook - you too sound mocking and superior in tone, and you didn't even have to drive the 800 miles to do so. sounds like we're more alike than not.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 8, 2009 12:18 PM
It's a private place, that was known from the beginning, and the
guardssecurity staff there can expel whoever they like.I have to say, I was not overly fond of the headline for this post PZ, this is not comparable with the Expelled from Expelled situation, some guy got told to turn his(yes,i know,harmless) shirt around, and the guy trying to film it got thrown out for trying to film it apparently.
All in all the atheists seem to have behaved admirably, as was to be expected, if we disturbed some family's delusions, ah well so be it, maybe it'll make them think, fat chance, but it didnt need the sensationalist headline IMO.
Posted by: woo woozy | August 8, 2009 12:24 PM
Freethinking can be practiced anytime, anywhere. Why wait? Start now!
Posted by: Anthony Porter | August 8, 2009 12:26 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but, when my friends and I arrived at this atrocity, they had a SWAT team of bullproof-vest wearing cops with drug-sniffing dogs, walking them around every car. It was so pathetically, and unapologetically, insidious. The hippie atheists are coming, break out the dog units!
Posted by: spondee | August 8, 2009 12:27 PM
Kook,
Sit down, eat your biscuits and watch some motherfucking Nascar.
Posted by: Jason | August 8, 2009 12:31 PM
http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/08/derek-rodgers-expelled-from-ken-hams-theme-park-of-ignorance/
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
August 8, 2009 12:33 PM
Rorschach, it's an in joke, the expelled word in the title that is. I.e. A humorous play on the word from the time PZ was 'expelled' from the Expelled movie.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 8, 2009 12:34 PM
I'd be interested to know if Looy thinks he works in a science museum or a tourist attraction, but I don't know of any way to get the answer. I know he could just respond, but how would we know he is telling the truth? Assuming for a moment that a creationist ever does tell the truth.
I keep getting this sense that creationists are underexposed to the breadth of religious practice throughout the world. There are hundreds of creation stories, all contradictory. How can they rationally and honestly elevate one . . . oh wait, i just answered my own question. Never mind.
Posted by: Kook curious | August 8, 2009 12:39 PM
Thanks again, Aphid.
I'm feeling pretty empowered already and I haven't even picked up a T-shirt yet!
I'm going to go out this afternoon and start working on my smirk and snicker techniques.
Posted by: Crystal | August 8, 2009 12:40 PM
Let me get this straight, Mr. Looy...
You asked Derek to turn his t-shirt inside-out because the message displayed was something YOU find offensive, which he willingly complied to, yet when Derek calmly stated that he didn't understand why it would be considered offensive, you considered that a "defensive" and "aggressive" altercation.
Then when he was talking quietly amongst a group of friends, YOU decided to walk over and eavesdrop on their conversation. Because he said something you didn't like, you told him to "keep his voice down". When he looked at you quizzically and asked what was wrong, you considered that to be a "smart-aleck" response.
These are two perfectly harmless actions (questioning why his shirt should be considered offensive and asking what was wrong in the bookstore), but because a family approached you and said their children were distracted by other chuckling patrons, you singled out this man and told him he was "out of chances". Yet this man, STILL maintaining civility, apologized to the family for any disturbances the group might have caused.
This man was NOT being disruptive; he was merely someone YOU decided to pick on. I am sure that if there were screaming children wearing "Jesus Lives" t-shirts in there, you would not find them disruptive. You have shown that you and your entire "museum" are nothing more than intolerant and pushy brutes.
Posted by: Afterthought | August 8, 2009 12:44 PM
@Kook:
That was really weak tea. You would have been better off pretending you had already left for Morris with your freshly printed Google map directions.Posted by: Jason | August 8, 2009 12:44 PM
There were others in our group that were told to turn their T-shirts inside out or change. They would be booted if they didn't comply. My group chatted with a couple students from Memphis. The one kid was forced to flip is horrible shirt inside out. What was so horrible about the T-shirt? Well it was a Christian shirt that described the problem of good works without faith.
We discussed the "Ape-Men: The Grand Illusion" lecture. The irony was almost too much to take! A racist ignorant professor leading sheep to believe that evolution was a lie. The "museum" itself talks about super evolution and makes references to it. So it appears the term evolution has a variety of meanings at the creation museum.
We are told to be afraid of what reason leads to - that being mass shootings, Nazis rounding up the jews, dinosaurs eating meat instead of plants... The propaganda machine model used by the Nazis seems to be Ken Ham's favorite device. He's not even twisting reality - he's simply creating a whole new reality. A reality where evilutions are going to round you up and put you in a concentration camp. One where racism comes from an understanding of human evolution and reason.
One item of interest - they had all kinds of merchandise in the book store. Everywhere you looked there were pictures of Darwin. I couldn't help but wonder what Darwin would think about his image being used to sell anti-evolution and anti-intellectual garbage. No matter how much the Creation "Museum" preaches that we humans are not animals, it seems to me that this place proves it beyond any doubt...
"We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."
And the reason we atheists are upset about this ignorance is very simple. The children of these sheep are being brainwashed and we know that they are the future of this planet and this country... The future leaders and the future decision makers. This will effect all of us eventually.
"How paramount the future is to the present when one is surrounded by children" - Indeed!
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 8, 2009 12:47 PM
I would also like to say that Mama Hypatia was very proud of how you all conducted yourselves at the Creation Theme Park, especially as the only dark spot was Derek, whom I would be proud to claim as my son.
One of my sons would have acted like Derek; one would have sworn loudly at the guards; and my daughter, who is a biologist and a tri-athelete, would have wrestled Mr Looy to the ground, with his arm pinned behind his back until he cried "Darwin!" Kids these days.........
Kook Curious
No dear, the only thing between you and freethinking, is actually............thinking!Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 8, 2009 12:49 PM
Mark Looy,
You know as well as I that just having people near you that identify as atheists is offensive to you. If all he did was ask what you found offensive about his shirt, why didn't you just tell him? I'd be interested to know what was offensive about the statement.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 8, 2009 12:50 PM
Crystal@89
You're forgetting that they are liars also. And greedy liars to boot, since it seems that the final straw was when Derek announced he would not give them any more money.
You're absolutely right about the brutes though. There are enough examples of the tactics the religious stoop to when trickery doesn't work.
Posted by: PixelFish | August 8, 2009 12:51 PM
I love Mr. Looy's tender account of the oh-so-upset family.
Gee, when I went to see Lucy, and some lady was ooohing and ahhing over the old Ethiopian bibles in the Ethiopian culture and history part of the exhibit and pointing out to her kids about how the word of God miraculously is spread, did I go and whine to a security guard about how another museum goer had different beliefs than me and how my trip had been absolutely ruined? Strangely enough, I did not.
Yes, it's *just horrible* when you run into people who have different beliefs than you.
Posted by: Happy Tentacles
|
August 8, 2009 12:53 PM
I work in a real museum, and yesterday I had my own encounter; a visitor used our Ice Age exhibit as an excuse to harangue me at some length about his belief that Climate Change is just a politically-correct fallacy. I don't have the option of throwing people out on account of their beliefs; all I could do was use patient and reasonable argument - until he announced that he reckoned Jeremy Clarkson knows more about such things than any scientist! The only option then was to smile politely and ignore him.
Staff in real museums can't expel people for unscientific thought, irrational ideas or blatant stupidity, much as we might like to!
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
August 8, 2009 12:57 PM
LOL, well said ma'am. A comment worthy of Hypatia herself.
Posted by: James F. Trumm | August 8, 2009 12:59 PM
I was there yesterday, PZ, and I'm sorry I didn't meet you (though my sons, who are Camp Quest alumni, were delighted to see Edwin Kagin again). One quick addition to the discussion of the security arrangements: I was followed for perhaps three minutes by a state patrolman with a dog inside the museum. I wondered if sniffer dogs are a usual feature of the museum and whether they were sniffing for drugs, weapons or both. I also heard a rumor--and it was just that, a rumor--that someone was taking pictures of license plates in the parking lot. Did anyone actually see that?
As to my overall impressions, I was more discouraged by the facility than I had expected to be. By that I mean that many parts of it were engaging, well-done, and professional. Of course the content was loopy medieval nonsense. But I hope that no one of our group underestimates the persuasive power of the facility. We can chortle quietly about the thousands of misrepresentations and crackpot scientific claims presented there, but I suspect that the average man or woman on the street would find it pretty compelling. I left thinking that those of us who would uphold Enlightenment values really have our work cut out for us. Ham & Co. are sophisticated and clever. We underestimate them at our peril. Where are the evolution museums that would present the real science of the origins of life in an interesting, engaging and compelling way? Those of us on the side of science face a massive educational and public relations challenge, one we are still not prepared to meet.
Posted by: E.V. | August 8, 2009 1:02 PM
You seem to have perfected those already and that's about the only skills for refutation you possess. Your "I know you are - but what am I" style is what we've come to expect from creationists. What's next, the "I'm rubber -you're glue!" retort - no, it will be the "You're intolerant"(of stupid people) comeback. Whatever it is, we know we'll be chastened severely and heartily sorrowful afterward.Posted by: ChrisKG | August 8, 2009 1:05 PM
Mr. Loo[ne]y,
How is that T-Shirt offensive? What if the ‘god” he was referring to was Zeus? Would it still apply? Talk about a weak constitution.
If I ever go to that shit-hole called a museum, I would have T-Shirt made that said: “If your stupid, fucking god ever comes back to this planet I will personally nail his fucking skull to another cross!” Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 8, 2009 1:07 PM
Mr. Looy,
I have to congratulate you on having dealt effectively with a difficult situation. We all know that a museum is not the place for creating conditions unfavorable to ignorance and that disrupting families, in effect engaging them (either directly or indirectly) to think is a huge detriment not just to their comfort but to the stability of our society.
I would sincerely hope that you would take under serious advisement the use of a more Biblical approach to dealing with such deviants and miscreants as this Derek fellow and in the future give them the stoning to death that they most obviously brought on themselves.
Thank you in advance.
PS There is an obvious geological/science aspect to the stoning process that could easily be incorporated into the Museum's mission activities and displays.
PSS I think that you need to incorporate some of my latest research into some of your displays to help clarify the geological setting leading up to the Flood (to help put the ~ 2348 BC date mentioned at some of the exhibits into proper perspective):
Pre-Flood Geological Eras (what some Darwinists refer to as the Precambrian)
PreGardenocene
Adamocene represented by the Lower unit of the Adam Supergroup
AdamandLillithocene represented by the Middle unit of the Adam Supergroup
AdamandEveozoic represented by the Upper unit of the Adam Supergroup
Fallocene
God would have had to place dirt over the barren rocks of the PreGardenocene for the garden to grow, and this, the Adam Supergroup, is considered one of the most significant geological paleosol units – the other being the upper Jessusosol of the post Flood upper Cenozoic Era. Adam and Eve would have walked on the uppermost surficial layer of soil (the AdamandEveozoic unit) which would have preserved their footprints intact during all of the rest of the Fallocene right up to the Flood.
Flood & Post Flood
Unfortunately, all Fallocene and earlier geology would have been destroyed or buried under miles-thick Noah Flood deposits laid down in ~ 2348 BC [the year that constitutes the Paleozoic, the Mesozoic and most of the Cenozoic (approx. 99.63%) eras]. The apparent loss of pre-Flood geology has to date been a setback to understanding the WHOLE TRUTH of Biblical geology, however, some top Bible-geology theorists believe that some remnants may have been preserved in deep-drilling cores and that this evidence has been previously overlooked (opening up a rich field of scientific endeavor, which the Museum should readily support).
As to the other 0.37% of Cenozoic time, there is also evidence that some volcanic activity was occurring in post-Flood Old Testament times and some Holocene soils have been dated as recently as the fall of the second Temple.
Thanks again - Your Friend in the Creative Sciences,
Posted by: Lynna | August 8, 2009 1:08 PM
Mr. Looy expects obedience from young adults. He also seems to expect behavior concomitant with a church-going congregation, in which all the participants have agreed on the assumptions that underlie the "service" -- and he thinks it would be rude to question those assumptions during the service.
But a "museum" open to the public (whether on private property or not) should expect a diversity of opinions, and should expect those opinions to be voiced.
A museum that thinks of itself as a Christian Ministry is at odds with itself. You can teach natural science in a museum setting without assuming or expecting that all visitors will quietly agree with, or in any way "respect" the exhibits as unquestioned truth. But in a church, other rules apply.
It's a good thing Derek Rodgers didn't try to ride the dino.
As an aside, I don't think Mr. Rodgers considered his conversation with Mr. Looy to be "private" in any way. Shooing the videographer away was inappropriate.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 8, 2009 1:16 PM
Michelle R Author @77
...Wow. When your unruliest man is just a dude with a t-shirt and a guy with a camera, you can say you got a boring life of unruliness.
Jesus would have at least overturned the Cash registers.
Posted by: WBA | August 8, 2009 1:17 PM
Mr Looy's home address should anyone feel inclined to communicate with him more directly
[no, you won't be posting private addresses here --pzm]
Posted by: Acronym Jim | August 8, 2009 1:18 PM
AJ Milne@64:
What? No love for Suidaetes? Even though they give us bacon?
Well, THAT'S a relief.
Posted by: Dan W | August 8, 2009 1:19 PM
Wow, having watched that video and read Mr. Looy's own post, I have to say, that's pretty pathetic on Looy's part. How is wearing a shirt that says "There's probably no god" offensive? And there's nothing wrong with not wanting to buy stuff in the "museum" gift shop, and saying so. And if one family is so thin-skinned as to think their vacation was "ruined" by atheists visiting this "museum", then that's they're problem, I'd say. And lastly, to Mark Looy, I saw nothing in your version of what happened that could be considered disruptive behavior by Derek.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 8, 2009 1:19 PM
PZ,
#104 should be vaporized.
Posted by: kook curious | August 8, 2009 1:21 PM
"If I ever go to that shit-hole called a museum, I would have T-Shirt made that said: “If your stupid, fucking god ever comes back to this planet I will personally nail his fucking skull to another cross!"
Somehow, I'm guessing that you could get that entire sentence printed on the pocket of any T-shirt that would fit you, my friend.
Seriously, what kind of nutcase drives from Minnesota to Kentucky to smirk at people? And to think that the professor's daughter is a prolific writer of pro-bestiality articles....who'd of ever thunk it?
Posted by: Aphrodine | August 8, 2009 1:23 PM
@Matt Penfold #1:
So would you say that they 'threw the book at you?'
/incredibly lame pun
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 8, 2009 1:23 PM
Kook - pro-bestiality?
Posted by: Jason | August 8, 2009 1:24 PM
#108 should also be vaporized.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 8, 2009 1:26 PM
"Once again, he was defensive and what I would call smart-alecky"
Sheesh Mr. Looy, what is this, grade school?
Posted by: Mena | August 8, 2009 1:27 PM
It must be horrible to be so focused on maintaining such a clueless existence that you need to be protected against seeing such an offensive t-shirt. Keep in mind that they also need to be protected against ever seeing LGBT people living normal lives and that the black guy (*gasp*) who is President has actually lived outside the US and had a father who was a furriner. It's almost like they are saying that if gay people exist, God may not, and 95% of the world's population aren't Americans they should all get together and clutch their pearls because they are surrounded by evil people who are lying to them. Unbelievable. Nothing ever gets through their OCD need to go through the same ritual every week with people that they are competing with to see who is the most holy and the most "American". It must really suck to be them, but they don't seem to ever realize it.
Posted by: WBA | August 8, 2009 1:27 PM
It's only readily available info., He might be more likely to read snailmail.
Posted by: kook curious | August 8, 2009 1:28 PM
Google is your friend, Aphid. Try Skatje Meyers + bestiality
I'm not mocking her, far from it; I think it's incredibly sad.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 8, 2009 1:30 PM
No kook, the only thing sad is your posts. You are a sad sack of misplaced concern.
Posted by: Camels With Hammers | August 8, 2009 1:32 PM
Has any one considered this may just be the performance art of recreating the Genesis experience wherein they expel a couple sinners for violating completely arbitrary prohibitions just like God did? Derek and the filmmaker didn't just get to see Adam and Eve, they got the "Adam and Eve Experience"!
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 8, 2009 1:32 PM
It's only readily available info., He might be more likely to read snailmail.
He's more likely to rightfully claim bullying and intimidation. Address snailmail to the Museum, not where his family lives.
Posted by: kook curious | August 8, 2009 1:33 PM
I see your point, Nerd....I don't want to be a party pooper. I'm snickering now; is that better?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 8, 2009 1:34 PM
Kook, the long time regulars are familiar with that episode. Calling it pro bestiality is quite a stretch. And claiming that Skatje is prolific on the subject is a lie.
None of this is surprising, Kook has show itself to be out of contact with reality. Best to ignore the sad sack of sick and let it wallow in it's own stupidity. Reason will not reach it.
Posted by: ChrisKG | August 8, 2009 1:35 PM
Kook,
Have you ever been to Disney? There are enough people to snicker at there. The average family could be tagged as morbidly obese but that’s not the purpose in going. Similarly, going to the “Creation Museum” is an exercise in learning the opposing point of view, not to point and laugh. However, since one side is securely documented and supported by science, it is amusing to see people believe that dinosaurs and people coexisted. How could we not laugh at people that think the Flintstones is a documentary? It’s like going to the movies, you know it’s not real, but there are some in the audience that really believe Harry Potter is real and they base their entire life around him, his “teachings” and his books. It’s not just absurd, it downright idiotic.
Lastly, yes, I could easily get the sentience to fit me on a T-Shirt, so what’s was your point?
C.
Posted by: ChrisKG | August 8, 2009 1:38 PM
Oops,
That last bit should read, "Lastly, yes, I could easily get the sentence to fit me on a T-Shirt, so what’s was your point?"
C.
Science, like a good editor, can make corrections.
Posted by: WBA | August 8, 2009 1:38 PM
He's more likely to rightfully claim bullying and intimidation. Address snailmail to the Museum, not where his family lives.
Hardly. They'll get sackloads of mail at that place.
Even if it were bullying , why not give him a taste of his own medicine ?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 8, 2009 1:38 PM
No, apologizing would be a good start. Your concern is noted and rejected. You will find better pickings elsewhere.Posted by: kook curious | August 8, 2009 1:39 PM
Chris, who's the bigger idiot; the guy that believes dinosaurs and human beings coexisted, or the guy that makes mocking him the sum of his existence?
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 8, 2009 1:40 PM
I'll bet these authoritarian types were chomping at the bit, praying for trouble, and when they saw how well-behaved atheists actually are, it made them seething mad. They had to throw somebody out to make themselves feel better, so they just chose the closest (and probably skinniest) person. They'll fix his little wagon! How dare people look, talk, think, and act differently! And based on evidence, no less.
Posted by: Afterthought | August 8, 2009 1:40 PM
@Kook:
If you are referring to PZ, he flew to Ohio for a conference and the visit to Ken's House of Ham was a side-trip. Do try to keep up.Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 8, 2009 1:41 PM
Nerd, ignore the asshole. It came here to make that baseless claim about Skatje. That alone should let you know what it's intention is.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 8, 2009 1:42 PM
Kook, PZ does other things and you know it. Quit lying to yourself so you can quit lying to us. That is how reality works, and you have a tenuous grasp on reality.
Posted by: beth | August 8, 2009 1:43 PM
My favorite part of Looy's account was that he quote-mined a t-shirt.
Posted by: Helen | August 8, 2009 1:47 PM
Hey, I can totally see why they threw him out. That sort of unrestrained anarchistic shenanigans must be incredibly threatening to pantywaist poltroons with a belief system that can't stand up to the slightest questioning.
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 8, 2009 1:48 PM
@ Kook:
What kind of a nutcase cares so much about what a group of people decide to do for a field trip and comes onto said group's blog to complain about it? Fuck off.
Posted by: kook curious | August 8, 2009 1:53 PM
I'm not complaining, mikee, I'm snickering....like After says: Do try and keep up, M'kay?
Posted by: XD | August 8, 2009 1:54 PM
I personally don't appreciate your little bit of agent provocateurism.Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 8, 2009 1:54 PM
Even if it were bullying , why not give him a taste of his own medicine ?
If nothing else I'd say to maintain the moral high ground.
Posted by: Snarla | August 8, 2009 1:56 PM
Has Harun Yahya ever visited the Creation Museum? That would be a visit I'd like to see captured on video.
Posted by: kook curious | August 8, 2009 1:59 PM
Truth be told, after watching that video I guess it can be said Meyers was doing a public service.
If hauling that pathetic pack of misanthropes around to obscure museums keeps them from graduating from pulling the wings off flies to mutilating small animals...I'm all for it.
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 8, 2009 2:00 PM
Cute, Kook. The kid who's whining about how condescending atheists are calls me a name that is supposed to diminish and ridicule me, then implies that I'm slow on the uptake. Egads! You're getting out into the deep end, my unoriginal nonfriend. Why come on and mock another's mocking unless the mockery is really veiled complaining? I'm looking through you.
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 8, 2009 2:03 PM
So, in your book Kook, pulling the wings off of flies is a separate act from mutilating small animals?
Posted by: Rik G | August 8, 2009 2:03 PM
#44..."no Q&A was allowed in the special effects theater."
Somehow, I'd imagine that they'd be happy to answer questions from a room full of the faithful eager to soak up more "knowledge" from the speaker. Do you know if they apply this rule every day, or if it was made specially for y'all?
#104..."Mr Looy's home address..."
Not cool, dude.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 8, 2009 2:06 PM
I have a few very religious friends, two of whom love to have discussions about God and the world and atheism. I asked them once why it is that so many Christians and Muslims seem to feel that atheists and atheism serve only to mock their beliefs.
Both (independantly) replied that the reason was because those people are not, in fact, sure of their beliefs... if they truly had faith, a differing opinion would not seem like a mockery but merely a question to be explored and answered within the bounds of their faith. When people say they feel you are mocking their religion, they really mean that you won the discussion.
Both of these people are christians (a Catholic and a Wesleyan minister).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 8, 2009 2:06 PM
Kook is still pointless and trolling. He serves no purpose in life, which is why he delusionally feels must troll against his betters. A pathetic creature who could really find better things to do.
Posted by: Lou FCD | August 8, 2009 2:06 PM
FTW.
Posted by: Discombobulated | August 8, 2009 2:10 PM
And with the attacks on PZ's daughter, "Kook curious" has outed himself as J.J. Ramsey from the Dungeon.
J.J. Ramsey
Regardless, good job to all who attended, despite the nearly uncontrollable compulsion to fall over laughing at the ridiculousness of the lies in that place. It was great fun following you, and at least a couple different news agencies picked up on the visit. Wish I could have been there.
Thanks for the laughs.
Posted by: kook curious | August 8, 2009 2:14 PM
No laughing Disc....we're all chortling to ourselves.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 8, 2009 2:18 PM
Jesus would have at least overturned the Cash registers
Very nice
Posted by: Lynna | August 8, 2009 2:33 PM
I agree with #107: I think Mr. Looy's home address should be deleted from the blog. We do not harass people in their homes. We leave that to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Posted by: Holydust | August 8, 2009 2:35 PM
I'm pretty sure the guy who posted Looy's home address is NOT one of us.
Looy, that will be scrubbed as soon as PZ is informed. Readily available or not, and as much as we might disagree with you, no one here is interested in your home address or your family.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | August 8, 2009 2:35 PM
And Michelle Malkin.
Posted by: G.wiz | August 8, 2009 2:41 PM
The offensive t-shirt 'There is probably no god.
Makes me wonder what would have happened if the shirt had said, 'There is no god' - a stoning? Crucifiction?
Posted by: Tern | August 8, 2009 2:42 PM
#104
Thanks for that.
Just starting to write him a letter now. (old fashioned I know).
Posted by: Michael X | August 8, 2009 2:43 PM
Ignore the troll and please do not post addresses on this blog FFS.
Posted by: Lynna | August 8, 2009 2:47 PM
I think the trigger that caused Mr. Looy to act was a complaint from a family with whom he identified. I'm sure he felt their pain, no matter how misplaced or lacking in perspective that pain was. He wanted to protect his community of believers.
However, you can't protect people from interactions that go against the grain, philosophically or theologically speaking. The museum fosters an atmosphere of insularity, and it would do well to dispense with that.
Posted by: Lou FCD | August 8, 2009 2:48 PM
And William Dembski.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | August 8, 2009 2:51 PM
Yes, please remove Mr. Looy's address. There is absolutely no reason to harass him at home.
Posted by: Lynna | August 8, 2009 2:52 PM
Do unto others, and all that jazz. It's the one commandment that makes sense. I don't want Mr. Looy writing to my home address, and I definitely won't be sending any missives to his home address.
Posted by: Phil | August 8, 2009 2:54 PM
Writing someone a polite letter = harassment ?
Posted by: foolfodder | August 8, 2009 2:54 PM
I expect most of the people who take their children there do so because they're confident they won't be exposed to other viewpoints.
Posted by: Evie | August 8, 2009 2:59 PM
I hopped on over to AiG to see what they had to say about the visit to the museum yesterday. I had two young heathens to raise so sadly I was not able to attend myself. It sounds like it was an interesting day. here's the link to AiG's account of the events:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/08/the-day-285-atheistsagnostics-visited-the-creation-museum/
Posted by: Dale Husband | August 8, 2009 3:01 PM
Well, they expelled PZ himself from a showing of EXPELLED last year, so this seems like a repeat of that.
Posted by: foolfodder | August 8, 2009 3:04 PM
Writing a polite letter would not be harassment. But how would you feel if your home address got posted on a Christian internet forum after you'd had an argument with a Christian? Even if you've put your address elsewhere on the internet, I imagine that feels a bit threatening.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 8, 2009 3:06 PM
Writing someone a polite letter = harassment ?
Yes, it will be seen as harassment.
C'mon Jennifer, no need to be freaked out. I just want to say hello"
It works both ways.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | August 8, 2009 3:15 PM
Donalbain @#76:
I know you're referring to Christian reactions, but imagine the outrage here as well. We may ridicule their ideas and point out the wrongness, but we do not want to suppress their free expression in a public forum. That is the big difference.
Posted by: Slaughter | August 8, 2009 3:18 PM
"Writing someone a polite letter = harassment?"
I imagine he would receive any polite letter in the same manner the theist received Derek's discussion in the Irreducible Complexity room that Steve in MI wrote about (#51). The more cogent and sane the letter, the more horrified he would become.
Posted by: 386sx | August 8, 2009 3:24 PM
I think the trigger that caused Mr. Looy to act was a complaint from a family with whom he identified. I'm sure he felt their pain, no matter how misplaced or lacking in perspective that pain was. He wanted to protect his community of believers.
Mr. Looy was just doing what he was paid to do. He wanted to make the visit a pleasant experience for all. Someone has to "keep the peace". So this is why Mr. Looy had to "pull a Looy". He does seem a little "defensive" about it though.
Posted by: ambulocetus | August 8, 2009 3:25 PM
I was worried something worse than this would happen. I think they were disappointed that you weren't an un-ruly mob. If things would have gotten out of hand, I'm certain it would have been quite a scene. Not that I thought you all would be anything other than well-behaved; it's just I don't trust security guards who feel they need dogs. I'll bet they were packin'heat, too.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 3:28 PM
Harassment can be any kind of unwanted communication. A telephone solicitor can be polite (most of them are) but many of us hold telephone solicitation to be harassment.
Posted by: Tern | August 8, 2009 3:31 PM
#151
"Just starting to write him a letter now. (old fashioned I know)"
On reflection probably not a good idea ( not that I would feel threatened by a missive @ home from Mr Looy)
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 8, 2009 3:41 PM
"kook curious" - an online handle exactly one word too long . . .
Posted by: ceezee | August 8, 2009 3:46 PM
Derek's kinda cute.
Posted by: Thunderbird5 | August 8, 2009 3:47 PM
I'd bet the reason Derek got singled out is because he's quite a good-looking young lad.
This Looy lump could be one of the many repressed gays in Christ's Righteous Kingdom: being part of the Big Tuff Security Squad For Ken providing some manly outlet (and subterfuge) for his desires. Alas, this swarm of happy atheists proved too much. One look at Derek's smile and Looy just had to have some excuse (any excuse) to cop a grope of that smooth twinky tricep and run its owner out the door. This incident is going to be the Godly Gorilla's wank fuel for sometime to come, I fear.
Posted by: Edward Lark | August 8, 2009 3:52 PM
Just what is the deal with the crazy security anyway? Apparently security was higher for the descent of the "horde," but it sounds like they have kind of a crazy level of security as a matter of course. Christian persecution complex at work?
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 8, 2009 3:53 PM
Mark, your explanation does not help your case at all. The young man's t-shirt was clearly not offensive. His behavior, going by the descriptions you gave, was in no way unruly or disruptive. Your very words betray you.
Posted by: Cujo359 | August 8, 2009 4:05 PM
#104 should definitely be removed. I don't know if it's the address of the person in question, but it's definitely someone's house, according to Google Maps.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 8, 2009 4:07 PM
If you are going to pose for an embarrassing photo, do it in front of a chroma key!
Sorry, I just had to play with it.
Posted by: eidolon | August 8, 2009 4:09 PM
FWIW, count me on the side of those opposed to any sort of direct communication with Mr. Looy. No sense in providing more grist for the creotard mill. Given the number of people attending and the conflicting views, the good guys (PZ et.al.) handled the whole thing super well.I imagine it must have been a bit of a disappointment for the godbots - no real film, no conflict.
Above all, this "museum" is Disneyland for YEC godbots.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 8, 2009 4:10 PM
Oops! I forgot the url!
Check it out.
Posted by: Terry
|
August 8, 2009 4:16 PM
Sometimes.
Is it appropriate to post Looy's home address here? Would you post mine if you disagreed with me? Probably some of the oaf's here would do so.
Now some of you people have other people defending Looy. That is annoying, considering the Creation Museum Hoax he has created.
It's his house, no matter how bullshit it is. No one "must" go there, or pay money to see his crap. He can evict anyone at anytime, just like the rest of us. Just because someone pays money to go in there, doesn't give anyone special privileges, and PZMeyers (I think) made that clear before we went for the visit.
Maybe Looy just didn't like the visitor's looks, or attitude or what-fucking-ever, but if you come to my place of business and I don't like the way you act or dress, maybe I'll toss your butt too. And guess what, there's nothing you can do about it.
Or maybe I'll just think you are an idiot, atheist or theist, I don't give a shit.
Posting his address, if it's correct (it may be some random person's address) is way out of line, and not up to the standards of the people who should be posting on this blog. Wait, it's not my blog. So I guess it's none of my business.
Posted by: ricklend | August 8, 2009 4:23 PM
PZ,
I agree with ref #107, there is no need to publish Mr. Looy's home address (ref. #104). Of course, I don't agree with Mr. Looy's ideas, but publishing his home address without his permission seems underhanded.
Posted by: Frank Lovell | August 8, 2009 4:29 PM
ON THE ISSUE OF WHO WAS/WASN'T EXPELLED FROM THE AiG "MUSEUM" AND FOR WHAT (GOOD OR NOT GOOD) REASON...
...For me, the bottom line is that there are two sides to the story, and the truth surely falls somewhere in between. If I was PZ, I would post the full text of Looy's clarifying comment as a Pharyngula "featured post" (since virtually all Pharyngulites read PZ's "featured posts" but only a much smaller subset of Pharyngulites read all the added "comments" -- I could be wrong but I suspect that 40-50 user-names account for 90+% of the body of comments appended to PZ's featured postings) with a short adder that says something like, "Now I've reported the view from both sides -- you decide" and then let it go at that.
But that's just me. During my tour as a part of the PZ/SSA entourage I did not myself observe any genuinely noteworthy misbehavior on the part of any of us or of any of the believing visitors or of any of the nonuniformed "museum" staff or of any of the uniformed and armed-to-teeth security staff -- in the course of the tour I had many respectful and even pleasant chats with members of all those groups.
Posted by: Wolfhound | August 8, 2009 4:32 PM
Gosh, with how much they appear to have spent in extra security measures(renta-cops, drug dogs, bomb dogs, etc.) it's looking more and more like the money the AIGnoramuses felt compelled to shell out to deal with the Evil Atheist Onslaught far exceeded how much they took in from ticket sales to said EAO members. Unless they were counting on the publicity increasing future business to their Fundie Funhouse.
Posted by: Louis | August 8, 2009 4:34 PM
Oh the DRAMA!
I expected our creationist chums to do something like this. Whatever this lad did it clearly comes under the heading of "utterly innocuous", even with the pearl clutching (Won't someone PLEASE think of the Virginian families?) description of Mr Looy being taken as the most accurate version of events. The clowns at Ham's Emporium of Fuckwittery have just made themselves look silly. I expect them to try to make this into "teh persecution of teh krissjuns" asap, if they haven't already.
What isn't mere drama, and what is clearly over any line worth mentioning is the posting of Mr Looy's home address @ #104, and I am very glad to see that (when I checked back for the post number) PZ has removed it. Good show PZ! Bad show whoever posted it.
{sigh} And the wheel keeps turning.
Louis
Posted by: E.J. | August 8, 2009 4:34 PM
Expressing legitimate concern is not automatic grounds to be branded as a concern troll. I agree that publishing Loony's (ugh, soooo sophomoric on my part) address is tantamount to supplying matches to bottle rocket wielding frat boys at a mixer. One zealous prankster can make life incredibly hard for the rest of group due to an alcohol fueled lapse in judgment(or just plain stupidity). I have no idea if anyone is monitoring this thread. I assume not since PZ has not removed the post and I'm sure he would, barring veiled or open death threats from Looy. But Looy wouldn't do that, I don't think Looy has the cojones to threaten an adult; he'd get someone else to do it...Posted by: Candy | August 8, 2009 4:34 PM
Well said, Don Smith. And good point, Donalbain.
The religious lead lives based on fear and guilt. It's a terrible way to live, and I'd feel sorry for them if they weren't so damned dangerous to society and the future well-being of the planet.
Of course, the family from Virginia didn't expect to run into any opposing views at the CM. They sure didn't want their children exposed to any sort of free-thinking activity. That's why Xtian parents spend all of their time controlling their children, not letting them read anything off the "approved" list, watch movies that challenge their world view, or dress like the kids from outside. This is why many of them homeschool.
They have to be eternally vigilant, for they never know what will break the mental dams they've erected in their children's minds. My former next door neighbors belonged to one of the really extremist babble thumper churches. Nicest people you'd ever want to meet, and they were great neighbors. My son played with their son all the time. They never tried to convert my little atheist heathen progeny, either. Most of the time it was possible to forget that, where religion is concerned, they were nuttier than fruitcakes.
But once, as my son and I carved a jack o'lantern in the back yard on a mild October afternoon, the father came home, went straight in the house, and pulled all the shades on our side of his house. Couldn't have the kids see what my son and I were up to. Who knows what would happen if his kid thought it looked like fun and wanted to join in.
In the face of all the other goofiness I've seen that goes into religious child indoctrination, this little incident always comes to mind first, and it still makes me very sad. Carving a pumpkin is the devil's work, dontcha know. Sad sad sad.
Posted by: Scouse | August 8, 2009 4:38 PM
For address see #177
advised Tom about this
Posted by: BG | August 8, 2009 4:41 PM
PZ already removed the address from post 104, but now he has to remove it from post 177 as well.
Posted by: Smidgy | August 8, 2009 4:41 PM
Mark Looy #54:
From what you've said there, the security officer failed to explain what was so offensive. You have still also failed to explain this yourself.
Well, firstly, even taking your side of the story as being true, you failed to say what was wrong.
Secondly, you only state here that he was speaking, 'in a voice that could be heard beyond the 10 people'. Sorry, all that tells me is that he was not speaking in a whisper. Without raising my voice at all, I can be 'heard beyond 10 people', especially if, as your scenario indicates, it is 10 people who are part of the same group I am, and so are walking with me.
Sorry, but you fail to indicate where you told the group that any and all mocking or pointing out of the numerous errors in the 'exhibits' was banned. You also fail to indicate why you believe that the fact this family is so easily affected by such actions is the fault of the group.
Nice guy. I'm not sure I would have left it at a simple apology, though. I would have probably taken the opportunity to point out that, if they took the trouble to actually look at some of the real scientific evidence, they'd laugh too.
Well, according to Derek, when he said he was exiting anyway, you then actually told him to keep exiting. So, I agree that PZ should have his fingers rapped for stretching the truth a little, but you did, in fact, tell Derek to leave, according to him.
Sorry, even if I take every word of the above being true, what happened is that you rudely pulled someone from this group, then someone who was attempting to make a documentary about atheists, and following this particular group of atheists, tried to film what's happening. He was brusquely told that it is 'a private conversation' by someone who isn't a party to that supposedly private conversation, so continued to try to film it, before being asked by security to leave the premises for doing so, when he quietly did so.
The only people being rude there were Dan Mangus and you.
Posted by: Pattanowski | August 8, 2009 4:44 PM
Now that the atheists have come and gone in a respectable manner, I will be leading a tour of the museum for the Midwestern chapter of the C.A.R society. (Criminally Aggressive Rationalists....in case you didn't already know)
We're going to earn our expulsion!
Posted by: PaulJ | August 8, 2009 4:45 PM
Imagine what what have happened if everything had gone entirely smoothly, completely without incident. Would the creationists have to admit after all that a crowd of unbelievers, despite their large numbers, behaved with impeccable respect and reverence?
What if a fight had broken out between the security personnel and an unruly mob of atheist evilutionists? How much "better" that would read in the subsequent reports (from their point of view).
Posted by: Kelseigh | August 8, 2009 4:47 PM
Yes, you were in a big hurry to advise Tom...why exactly? Does Tom run the Creation "Museum"? Or were you just in a big hurry to blame "PZ Myers crew" for it?
Say, is there any way of knowing you weren't the one who posted it in the first place?
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 8, 2009 4:48 PM
I think #104 was a bit of a dungeon offence - we may disagree with Looy, but his private information is his PRIVATE information.
And besides, if you want to take it up with him personally? What are we into harrassing security guards now?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 8, 2009 4:49 PM
Clearly Derek was targetted because his non-offensive T-shirt is somehow offensive. If you have religi-vision(tm) the statement "there probably is no God" metamorphoses into an image of lesbians performing sex acts with the bible. If you you have religi-hearing(tm) then quiet laughter and muted mockery of the ridiculous 'exhibits' at the 'museum' are transmuted into loud, aggressive and offensive disruption of the proceedings. So you see, by being an atheist in the reason-less land of the creation museum, Derek invited persecution. At least thats the logic of Looy and his hired thugs.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 8, 2009 4:51 PM
dorcheat #33
Oh, well spotted sir ! I just knew Herlock Sholmes was there somewhere ! And disguised as a door too ! Fiendishly clever !
Posted by: Candy | August 8, 2009 4:52 PM
Agree with Bruce Gorton. Posting personal information is a banning offense all across the civilized portion of the internets. This is something the Malkintents do, not something we do. Definitely not okay.
Posted by: Rob | August 8, 2009 4:55 PM
The creationists are not kicked out of this Colorado Museum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McxGZyBBXMY
Posted by: Holydust | August 8, 2009 4:56 PM
I agree with Frank -- nothing would be bad about featuring Looy's personal response, unedited, in another blog post as "the other side of the story". I'm sure a score of Pharyngula readers may not have yet seen it.
Posted by: Celtic | August 8, 2009 5:00 PM
Bans are academic, as you will see over the last few days.
There is no way of enforcing them.
Posted by: All_Three | August 8, 2009 5:01 PM
Many thanks to both sides for a most interesting spectacle. To a neutral party, the winning hand was clearly dealt to Mr. PZ Myers and his group.
The significance of the ninth commandment is perhaps not brought to attention often enough. Please remain vigilantly aware that it is taken as seriously as all of the others, and failures of compliance are tallied in every instance. Of note here is the creation museum itself, which since conception has become an administrative bottleneck. Noted infractions are increasing at an alarming rate, with the dinosaur exhibits in particular draining the red ink.
Subscriptions to Hell are being delayed by the absolute glut of new children added to the roster when they accompany their parents to the museum. Be mindful of the lesson learned by young James Shale, 7 years, Wisconsin. James chose the correct path by doubting the exhibits. However, by expressing his doubt with the words, "Dad, this is bullshit", James fell foul of the fifth commandment and will learn of his terrible fate upon his death at 86 from excessive masturbation. No-one likes to see souls lost to the Devil at such a young age, but we have standards to adhere to.
The attending Atheists have received a wealth of commandment defending points for this particular event, but sadly this is nowhere near enough to avoid eternal persecution.
All Three thanks you.
You may continue with your business.
Posted by: Rob in Memphis | August 8, 2009 5:09 PM
If one of the reasons the young man got thrown out was because one of your security guards couldn't handle being asked to explain exactly what it was about a T-SHIRT was supposedly offensive, you might want to consider hiring tougher security personnel to replace the nametag-wearing delicate doily who got his feelings hurt by being asked a simple question.
Posted by: Kelseigh | August 8, 2009 5:10 PM
I just emailed PZ about #177, that ain't cool. As to #187, did you have time to do that before you went off to tell T.estes?
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 8, 2009 5:13 PM
Derek
You are certainly in good company. The Expelled. Woohoo.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 8, 2009 5:19 PM
Dear Mr. Looy,
Thank you so much for your illuminating description of the Creation Museum staffs' and your encounters with that disruptive student. Reading your side of the story puts the entire incident in an whole new light.
My word, that student was indeed, as you say, unruly!
Wearing a t-shirt suggesting that God "might" not exist is simply unacceptable. For one thing, God might have chosen to smite the student right there and then, which probably would have led to some unfortunate publicity for your museum. And given the fact that God so often chooses to smite the righteous along with the wicked, why, that student was putting the life of everyone in your museum in jeopardy!
And, I can perfectly understand your concern about the student's being "defensive" when your security chief told him to turn his atheist t-shirt inside out. My goodness, being "defensive" is simply outrageous and offensive behavior!
Don't these freethinking students understand that they must unquestioningly do whatever someone in authority asks, even if they don't understand the reason for the request? Having young people ask "why?" is behavior that can lead to all sort of unfortunate consequences, including questioning the scientific information your museum presents so professionally.
Worst of all is the young man's stating "in a voice that could be heard beyond the ten people" that "he was not about to spend another penny in this place." Such behavior was out of line for three reasons:
1.Every right-thinking person knows that the gift shop is the highlight of every museum trip.
2. The student was, disgracefully, refusing to contribute any more money to support the museum's mission.
3. By not merely whispering his decision to forgo adding to the museum's monetary take for the day to only the 10 people in his group, the student's pernicious pronouncement might have been overheard by other potential shoppers who might have left the gift show without buying anything, either because they might have made the egregious error of thinking "perhaps the student is right," or because they wanted to scurry out of the gift shop to get away from those unruly atheists.
And when you then asked the student to "keep his voice down," and he dared looked at you "quizzically" and asked you "what was wrong?", well, I am unable to comprehend such scandalizing and evil conduct! Truly it must be your love of the Lord which enabled you to control yourself when faced with such atheistic provocation.
It's also so heartbreaking that that Virginia family was frustrated, and the children "distracted," by the "laughing and mocking by some in the SSA group nearby." Perhaps you should consider limiting entrance to your museum only to those who believe in the inerrant truth of Genesis. While that will lessen your opportunity to educate and save the souls of atheists, freethinkers, and others headed toward eternal damnation, it will keep children from being distracted from paying attention to the Biblical truths their parents are trying to teach them. Yes, we must always think of the children!
The fact that the unruly student apologized to the family certainly adds another layer to the picture you paint of his immoral character and abominable behavior. But, really, what do you expect from a Godless atheist?
I am sure that, when their eternal fate is justly meted out by God, He will keep in mind both this student's unruly behavior and Dr. Myers'
lying abouterroneous recounting of the incident.Most sincerely,
Me
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 8, 2009 5:20 PM
If we can vote on this, I also vote to remove Looy's home address. I am sure that he has a work address, and the complaint is in his professional conduct, having nothing to do with his family or home. Even if WBA's intent was for people to send him polite notes about why he was wrong in the way that he handled the situation, I suggest that the proper mailing address is:
Mark Looy
The Creation Museum
PO Box 510
Hebron, KY 41048
Too many people read this blog for a home address to be posted here, even if it is searchable information. We just don't want anyone to think that the Denizens encourage harassment.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 8, 2009 5:23 PM
Mark Looy #54
Aaaah, the sweet taste of success !
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 8, 2009 5:26 PM
In the past PZ has made of point of removing home information except for those who threaten him. Mr. Looy has not threatened him. Any reference to Mr. Looy's address should be removed.
Posted by: Jadehawk | August 8, 2009 5:28 PM
what other side of the story? Looys account is virtually identical to PZ's, except for the tone.
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 8, 2009 5:33 PM
Looy: Courage FAIL—afraid of a t-shirt, and afraid to be filmed being afraid of a t-shirt.
#178: Godwin FAIL
This thread: Personal address FAIL—PZ, scrub the whitepages url's above with Looy's home address.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | August 8, 2009 5:35 PM
Pretty sure PZ already deleted the address, unless I missed something? Anyway, yeah, banworthy. And thanks to Mr. Looy for showing up to confirm his amusingly stupid behavior, and to Derek for being such an articulate, polite, and all-around great guy. ^.^
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
August 8, 2009 5:37 PM
Mystery of the personal address details solved
Posted by: Bryan Kerns | August 8, 2009 5:38 PM
Comment #177 needs the address deleted, as well.
Posted by: AngelKaida | August 8, 2009 5:41 PM
Can we please all stop posting links to that idiot's blog? He is certainly an obnoxious little jackass with his head lodged anatomically improbably far up his posterior, but we already know that, and we don't need to grace him with our traffic to find it out.
Nothing personal, GilbertNSullivan. Just seen a lot of links to his blog lately.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
August 8, 2009 5:42 PM
Mark Looy (#54)
It's hard, isn't it, to keep the cover over the fact that you're lying to children when people are there mocking your attempts. What kind of truth crumbles in the face of contradiction? The kind that wasn't truth to begin with.
The only people I've ever met who think Answers in Genesis can provide them with facts are the ones who don't understand how things like evolution actually work. I do not require them to accept evolution, but they can't even get correct what they claim to disbelieve! You build ignorance upon ignorance. Shame on you.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 8, 2009 5:45 PM
#177, Sorry you were offended. It's just too fun to play with a chroma key. I'll tell you what, I'm taking it off of photobucket right now. Done.
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
August 8, 2009 5:46 PM
@AngelKaida
Fair enough... just thought it might be fun to see definitive proof that the publishing of Looy's address details was an attempt by one of Pastor Tom's readership - someone called Nolan - to smear PZ.
Posted by: 386sx | August 8, 2009 5:47 PM
The creationists are not kicked out of this Colorado Museum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McxGZyBBXMY
That video brings up a good point. How come dinosaur bones and human bones aren't found together? So then I thought, well maybe dinosaurs and humans just didn't "hang out" together very much. Then I thought, hey wait a minute, they were all supposed to be in the same flood together. So then I thought, yep creationism is pretty a darn stupid cult alright. Every bit as dumb as flat-earthism.
Posted by: Mixter | August 8, 2009 5:53 PM
We weren't expelled, but we were harassed. That place is all sorts of crazy.
Mixter
Posted by: Lyr
|
August 8, 2009 5:56 PM
Maybe they expected the same sort of screaming nonsense that their protests make so much use of...you know, like at the town meetings they've been so disruptive at.
Posted by: Paul Claessen | August 8, 2009 6:00 PM
Re: #44 (Jason: "The speaker was Dr Terry Mortenson who according to the flyer had a "Ph.D" in Geology".
Actually, he has a Ph.D. in (emphasis mine) "HISTORY of Geology".
See, I can be a Ph.D. in the "HISTORY of swimming" and still drown in a 6 feet pool!
His thesis was "The Great Turning Point: the Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin"
He got his Ph.D. at Coventry University, UK (Formerly: Coventry Polytechnic, UK).
Posted by: Newfie | August 8, 2009 6:04 PM
Not only are you a professional lying asshole, you're a smug prick of one as well. Good luck to any children of your own if not already institutionalized, unless you have them in the family business of Lying Douche-Baggery. How Christian, indeed.
You sir, are a disgrace to humanity.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 8, 2009 6:06 PM
Wait a second guys! I didn't post anybodys personal address at #177. I posted a url to an altered picture. It may have been a little offensive to some sensibilities and of course it fails Godwins Law, but I didn't post anybody's personal address. Anyways, I deleted it from photobucket. Though, it may still show, until they delete it from thier servers.
Posted by: Happy Tentacles
|
August 8, 2009 6:07 PM
Yes, I agree - Looy's home address shouldn't be published. It isn't his children's fault.
Posted by: Kelseigh | August 8, 2009 6:12 PM
#220: Your post was #178, I think, and PZ deleted the one above it.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 8, 2009 6:15 PM
Ah, but he was *thinking* naughty thoughts! The Thought Police are never wrong.
Did they also give him detention and keep him at the theme park when everyone else had gone?
I don't believe I can ever go; I'd either fall over laughing or start screaming hysterically at all the bullshit.
What? No iPod from Ham?
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 8, 2009 6:20 PM
#222,
So, I didn't have to delete it? Oh darn it all! Life is funny sometimes. Anyways, it was a stupid stunt.
Posted by: Holydust | August 8, 2009 6:20 PM
Jadehawk:
There's a reason I put "the other side of the story" in quotation marks. Perhaps I should have made a grand gesture and mentioned something about air quotes.
My point is that we have nothing to lose from making sure that he knows that all Pharyngula's readers have, in fact, seen what he had come here to say in his apparent defense and that -- well, I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, I've reviewed what he had to say and it hasn't changed my mind.
My point was, like others have said, people should see it -- it just makes most of us feel like Looy's treatment of Derek was melodramatic at best. Doesn't work in his favor.
Posted by: manicstreetpreacher | August 8, 2009 6:25 PM
Eye-witness account of a lecture given by the head of Answers In Genesis, Ken Ham, at Liverpool University in 2008:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=399
Posted by: Kelseigh | August 8, 2009 6:26 PM
You do realize that's not me, don't you #226? Your attempt at a nasty attack has resulted in...a complete stranger. I don't even know where Garson is!
Posted by: Josh
|
August 8, 2009 6:28 PM
If that's actually true, then it just seems to be further evidence that all we ever have to do to hold the moral high ground with people like this is just let them be themselves.
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 8, 2009 6:33 PM
I just wanted to let everyone know that I've alerted Mr. Looy that his address was posted. And I also want to let everyone know that I would not in a million years suspect PZ of doing something like that. PZ did the right thing by taking it down, and I don't think he should be held responsible. I have no idea what the laws are on that, but I hope he's not liable if any pranks are pulled. The only reason I know about it is because someone came on my blog and told me.
Good day.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 6:33 PM
What's there to say to Looy? That he's a thin-skinned YEC fundamentalist Christian isn't news to him (well, he might disagree with the thin-skinned part).
bastion of sass gave an excellent "reply" to Looy in #202. But Mr. Looy is probably too righteous to appreciate it.
Posted by: Travis | August 8, 2009 6:34 PM
Kelseigh, I am going to have to find out where that is. I hope they did not read or blog and still think the address was right considering it says you are in Ottawa. Also, nice to see some other people here in Ottawa reading this blog.
Posted by: steve white | August 8, 2009 6:37 PM
he quit before he was fired
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 6:37 PM
Garson is part of Greater Sudbury. That's not to be confused with Lesser Sudbury, which doesn't exist.
Posted by: Travis | August 8, 2009 6:39 PM
Turns out Garson is near Sudbury, and google maps says it will take about 5 hours and 40 min to drive there. But this is Canada, I am sure someone there will know the letters are really for you, we have a small population and everyone knows each other.
Posted by: Bench | August 8, 2009 6:40 PM
@230: Estes wrote "I would not in a million years suspect PZ of doing something like that."
And that's a really long time, too; way longer than the universe has even existed!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 6:43 PM
That was mighty Christian of you, T. Estes. You may pat yourself on the back three times for doing such a noble thing. If you're a Boy Scout, you've done your good deed for the day. Now you may die happy, knowing that you've made the world a safer place for creationist museum officials.
Posted by: Newfie | August 8, 2009 6:47 PM
Where da girls are at the bingo, and da boys are getting stinko, and all are thinking no more of INCO tonight?
Posted by: Kelseigh | August 8, 2009 6:47 PM
Weird. I've never been to Sudbury.
Wonder who the poor person is?
Posted by: Afterthought | August 8, 2009 6:49 PM
I thought I was following all the address B.S. including the appropriate deletions, until Garson turned up. What the hell is that all about?
Posted by: Travis | August 8, 2009 6:52 PM
Stompin' Tom really needs to come up more often here.
My roommate is from Sudbury, I'll be he knows this mystery person. Oh, probably not, but I will tell him about it.
Posted by: Kelseigh | August 8, 2009 7:00 PM
For the record, I doubt I'd worry much about getting mail from you lot. Showing up at my door (assuming you knew where it was) might give me pause, however.
Posted by: Smidgy | August 8, 2009 7:04 PM
Afterthought #240:
I could be wrong, but I think some of the more dimwitted than usual creotards collectively blame everyone who has posted here for the posting of Looy's address, and one decided to get their own back by posting one of the commentor's addresses - and got it wrong.
Posted by: foolfodder | August 8, 2009 7:06 PM
What if we bring cake or bacon? Or bacon Cake?!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 8, 2009 7:17 PM
Can't you just see that TEstes is just so full of Xian luv. Just got to run and tattle, and will just forget out of that luv to mention that it has been deleted...
Posted by: Moggie | August 8, 2009 7:18 PM
Pre-Zerg, I was worried that agents provocateur would tag along and try to cause trouble. It didn't occur to me that they would wait until afterwards and simply show up at Pharyngula. Silly me: that's cheaper, safer, and more public.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
August 8, 2009 7:32 PM
Tom Estes (#230)
Funny how none of the rest of us were even close to worried he would be.
Admit it, there's a part of you that's fantasizing over just that.
Posted by: No BS | August 8, 2009 7:40 PM
Mr. Looy,
What ever happened to "Teach the Controversy" ?
Posted by: Newfie | August 8, 2009 7:44 PM
Last night, my wife ran down to the local traveling amusement ride/games of chance, for a half hour with a friend. They went on a few rides. As they were leaving, they heard a couple barks from a carnie at game of chance, who wasn't too enthused with his employment, it seems:
"anybody wanna get ripped off?" .... "anybody want to try to win some junk?"
If you're reading this, and you work at a place like Mr. Ham's, I sincerely hope that you feel similar to that carnie.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 7:46 PM
It only matters when evolution is what's being taught. If creationism has center ring, then the "Controversy" doesn't exist.
Posted by: foolfodder | August 8, 2009 7:46 PM
A. Noyd (#247)
Someone was speculating over at Tom's blog that PZ could be held responsible. It seems fair that he should be able to clarify his own position in response (even though it wasn't in this thread there might be other people here who had read that).
Posted by: Lynna | August 8, 2009 7:48 PM
The link posted @195 leads to a youtube video that shows visitors clearly talking loud enough for *everyone* around them to hear. These visitors teaching a "BC, or biblically correct" version of Creationist history are plainly rebutting the information in the exhibits, yet everyone tolerates them. By Mr. Looy's standards, they would definitely be kicked out of the museum ... except they are shouting "Jesus" in unison so it's all okay.
Double standard.
Posted by: turnipthebeets | August 8, 2009 7:54 PM
Are you sure that's mark looey in the picture and not John Lithgow?
Posted by: Mena | August 8, 2009 7:56 PM
Sudbury? Where all those poor unfortunate neutrinos go to die?
Posted by: chrisD | August 8, 2009 7:57 PM
Seems to favor Dick Cheney more in both looks and demeanor.Posted by: dorcheat | August 8, 2009 7:59 PM
#193: Rolan le Gargéac wrote "Oh, well spotted sir ! I just knew Herlock Sholmes was there somewhere ! And disguised as a door too ! Fiendishly clever !"
I was wrong about the live broadcasts and the footprints in post #33. This chroma key is just used for mundane photos of visitors with overlaid dinosaur or religious imagery in the background. I deserved that wee bit of sarcasm.
#213: Robert Madewell wrote "It's just too fun to play with a chroma key."
I knew that somebody would eventually pick up on the many potentials of chroma keys. As an atmospheric scientist, I have two friends who are/were television broadcast meteorologists. It is fascinating to watch a television weather segment of a meteorologist in the news studio in front of blank chroma key screen with television monitors off to the sides from the chroma key. You may observe some of the less experienced weather personalities constantly looking off to the side and off camera. They are actually looking to the off camera monitors so they can reference themselves to what is actually broadcasting on television.
Come to think of it, I believe it much more than coincidental that the security team escorted the camera person with the large and high quality camera from the museum. This neutral person was filming a documentary in front of a chroma key as Mark Looy admonished Derek. My goodness, think of the possibilities an experienced video editor could create from this scene with a chroma key in the background.
Posted by: wÒ&Ogacute;† | August 8, 2009 8:03 PM
Mr. Looy:
Tits or GTFO.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 8, 2009 8:05 PM
I cannot BELIEVE this. It is OUTRAGEOUS! I've never felt so betrayed, so abused and disabused at the same time. Even PZ?
It seem incomprehensible to me that there was one single person in that group of supposedly intelligent and moderately respectful people who thought wearing a t-shirt that said "NO GOD" on it (regardless of any other text) in huge letters into the Creation Museum was OK. As in, I would have been amazed if there was ONE PERSON who thought this was not purposefully rudely disruptive, aggressively confrontational , and PRECISELY what this trip was meant NOT to be.
And now it turns out its the entire group, including the Professor in charge of the whole mess.
Jesus H. Christ, I'm disappointed.
Posted by: Katkinkate | August 8, 2009 8:18 PM
Posted by: Rorschach @ 81 "... I have to say, I was not overly fond of the headline for this post PZ, this is not comparable with the Expelled from Expelled situation, some guy got told to turn his(yes,i know,harmless) shirt around, and the guy trying to film it got thrown out for trying to film it apparently.
All in all the atheists seem to have behaved admirably, as was to be expected, if we disturbed some family's delusions, ah well so be it, maybe it'll make them think, fat chance, but it didnt need the sensationalist headline IMO."
Yeah it did. Wouldn't have been funny otherwise. It's sarcasm, of a sort, and consistent with PZ's usual sense of humour. Lighten up, this is PZ's own space. He can dramatise any way he wants.
Posted by: wÓÒ† | August 8, 2009 8:23 PM
Oh, man, epic name fail.
That'll teach me to post after four Cuba Libres.
Posted by: JafafaHots | August 8, 2009 8:24 PM
"And that's a really long time, too; way longer than the universe has even existed!"
LOL!!! You win the thread.
Posted by: Doc Bill | August 8, 2009 8:27 PM
My only question is why did Mr. Looy drop the "n" from his last name?
Posted by: JafafaHots | August 8, 2009 8:30 PM
concern troll is concerned.
Posted by: 386sx | August 8, 2009 8:34 PM
Lighten up, this is PZ's own space.
Yeah lighten up, dude. Don't "pull a Looy" on us and get all carzy and stuff.
Oh, man, epic name fail.
Lol dude, you "pulled a Looy".
Posted by: ricklend | August 8, 2009 8:48 PM
Yay! Mr. Looy's address is now gone. Of course, it might not have been Mr. Looy's actual home address, but PZ's moral compass and decency is far better than 90 per cent of the religious types out there.
Posted by: Carlie | August 8, 2009 8:50 PM
It is fascinating to watch a television weather segment of a meteorologist in the news studio in front of blank chroma key screen with television monitors off to the sides from the chroma key.
Better yet when the meteorologist wears a green tie.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 8, 2009 8:53 PM
Usually I'm pretty good at spotting the satire, but this thread is an extra tricky one. Real pearl clutching vs pretend pearl clutching is near indistinguishable.
I wish I could have been there, especially for the after-party. When will the embarrassing drunken atheists singing Cthulhu carols show up on youtube? Will Derek do a live re-enactment and strip off his T-shirt for the cameras, thereby enabling him to never have to GTFO ever again? (Pecs, tits, wevs. Cute boy is cute.)
Posted by: Truculent | August 8, 2009 8:59 PM
I was at the Museum wearing my Black T-shirt that said ATHEIST in big, white letters and I was hassled by no one. Now granted I got a ton of dirty looks from other visitors and such, I didn't have any problems with the staff that I interacted with. My cousin did get hassled by security for taking a picture of them. He just apologized and went on. Hell, we were even fairly loud in our discussion of the absurdity of the exhibits. Like the one that was empty and said "This Space Still Evolving".
I do believe some of the Security guards were acting like over bearing idiots, but the lady that made my Burrito (Very good burrito, worth the $5) at the Palm Cafe was extremely nice and helpful, the one security guard that I did interact with was also super nice and informative, he even went so far as to tell me to have a nice day as I was entering the parking lot (I feel he was genuine and I returned it with a smile and wave), the lady at the Planetarium was helpful, and the lady at the "Last Adam" movie or whatever even put on a special show for us because we arrived early and was very pleasant. I figured I should write this up because not all of the staff was bad. Just some of the Security, especially the "larger" ones if you catch my drift.
The show with "Dr." Lisle was laughable at best and the exhibits, while top-notch in quality, were lacking in intelligence. I especially liked the model of Noah's Ark with the mini dinosaurs getting on board. I just wish I had taken a bit more time and read each display more thoroughly. I missed some of the funnier things like the "Diet after the fall" and I wish I had climbed up on the Triceratops for the picture instead of just posing behind it.
All in all it was a fantastic day and I had tons of fun.
Posted by: TheBlackCat | August 8, 2009 9:05 PM
@ Carlie: or Groundhog Day, where one of the characters gets in front of the blue screen wearing a blue sweater.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 8, 2009 9:06 PM
dorcheat, I had posted a picture of that with Hitler in the chroma key. But, I was afraid that the comment thread was getting offended and I took it off the intertubes. I was mistaken. They were talking about a post before mine that had Looy's home address. I think I might put it back up again (or a similar one, I did more than just the hitler pic).
OK, I put up this pic. Enjoy.
Posted by: Robert MacDonald | August 8, 2009 9:32 PM
It could have been worse...Ted Haggard could have swung around to accuse everyone of calling his children animals.
Posted by: kamaka | August 8, 2009 9:51 PM
"You have to turn your T-shirt inside-out."
Haha! Ummm, excuse me, this is not the Soviet Union. Free speech is the accepted standard here, even in your sacrosanct space. Change my shirt? Not today, not any day.
Throw me out because my shirt says "Belief in god makes you stupid" and I will see you in court. Without an attorney, I will win.
Posted by: dorcheat | August 8, 2009 9:57 PM
As paying customers, one has to be troubled by the vitriol from Mark Looy's comments on this thread and from Ken Ham's blog comments. Perhaps Mark Looy or Ken Ham can manage to write or say a "plain vanilla" thank you for your business. The atheist free thought group after all, payed admission as customers for a service.
It appears from all accounts that around 300 people attended with PZ. Assuming that every attendee used the 10 dollar special admission price, this is an easy 3000 dollar day for the museum. Also some of the attendees ate lunch as well at the museum. Instead, Ken Ham with his blog and Mark Looy in this thread berate the atheist and free thought group.
Sadly and obviously, Ken Ham and Mark Looy are rather sensitive to constructive critique and mild lampooning. That said, the museum did lose by my count four free tickets to the family from Virginia: two adult tickets at 44 dollars and two childrens' tickets at 24 dollars for a total of 68 bucks, admission tickets that Mark Looy choose to give away. I suppose that Mark Looy did not appreciate this some two percent loss in revenue and retaliated by threatening to expel Derek (who attended all the way from Nova Scotia, about the same distance as Virginia).
Posted by: Newfie | August 8, 2009 10:07 PM
*Rolls the "Judge Dice".... Dammit, Roberts! Crapped out*
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 8, 2009 10:33 PM
kamaka@272: "Haha! Ummm, excuse me, this is not the Soviet Union. Free speech is the accepted standard here, even in your sacrosanct space..."
Not sacrosanct; just private. As in privately owned, as in take your free speech and shove it up your pansy ass. AND LEARN TO READ! This was all covered a few days ago. I'm pissed there are so many young atheists you are apparently nothing but naive childish ignoramuses who apparently confuse "you're not the boss of me!" with having a liberal philosophy.
"Concern troll" and "pearl clutching" this ain't. This is me being smart and you being dumb.
Posted by: No BS | August 8, 2009 11:02 PM
*apologies for caps lock*
TO WBA, POST #104.
YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
SOMEBODY TAKE AWAY THIS IDIOT'S KEYBOARD!
DUMBASS, MORONIC, STUPID BUM CLOT!!!!
WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING ?
ASSHOLE!
THANKS FOR NOTHING!
*caps lock off*
Rarely swear, I do.
But it needed to be driven home.
Posted by: Jimmy | August 8, 2009 11:18 PM
Kamaka@272 "Throw me out because my shirt says "Belief in god makes you stupid" and I will see you in court. Without an attorney, I will win."
No, dude...with or without an attorney your butt would be trounced. As tmaxPA@275 rather forcefully explained such an action taken on private property is not covered in the constitution which is devoted in part to limiting the powers of the government, not private people on private property.
Of course, tmaxPA@275, branding all young atheists as "naive childish ignoramuses" is a rather rash generalization and not likely to be true. So, lighten up.
Posted by: OrbitalMike | August 8, 2009 11:21 PM
Here is another angle of the confrontation.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/evodevo_mike/sets/72157621854290897/
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 8, 2009 11:26 PM
In case anyone cares, Tom's blog seems to be open to all again:
"I never said that other ISP's were accidently blocked, I said yours was. I unblocked them all at your request. You don't know me personally, so there is no way I can convince you that I'm not afraid of debate, so I'm not going to try. All I can say is you seem like a decent person, and I look forward to civil discussion in the future.
-Tom"
He did unblock me, but think I've had enough. I visited there just now and think there's no point: trying to debate with him is like pissing into a strong headwind. And how dare he call me a "decent person". Knowing what he thinks "decent" is that's a low blow.
Posted by: Discombobulated | August 8, 2009 11:39 PM
OrbitalMike@278:
Wow, gorgeous photo set, and you even captured a good number of the horribly offensive shirts on display. I might have to get a couple of those now :-)
Thanks for sharing that!
Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 8, 2009 11:47 PM
Consider writing a review of the Creation Museum experience on Google.
This will take you there:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=creation+museum
You need a Google account, but it takes 10 seconds to sign up for one if you don't already have one.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 8, 2009 11:51 PM
Orbital Mike, nice pics. My type of crowd. You can see lights on somebody home in the eyes.
Posted by: KevinC | August 9, 2009 12:03 AM
Oh yeah? I bet they wouldn't have dared to expel Derek if he'd been a MUSLIM!
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Posted by: SC, OM | August 9, 2009 12:09 AM
Legal questions aside, "You're not the boss of me!" is in fact the essence of a liberal philosophy.
Ni dieu ni maître.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myj7P3uoKaQ
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com
Posted by: SC, OM | August 9, 2009 12:13 AM
Oh -
bastion of sass @ #202 - that was tremendous.
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com
Posted by: 386sx | August 9, 2009 12:19 AM
Wow OrbitalMike.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 9, 2009 12:30 AM
"I would have been amazed if there was ONE PERSON who thought this was not purposefully rudely disruptive, aggressively confrontational , and PRECISELY what this trip was meant NOT to be."
Yeah, didn't you guys get the memo? You can be an atheist, just never ever EVER tell anyone! That's why we have the secret handshake, for crying out loud!
Personally, I think "You're not the boss of me" is a fine philosophy. I vowed some time ago that since I had reached the age of adulthood, I wouldn't let any fellow adult push me around due to perceived authority. He or she better have an official uniform, and preferably a gun, and even more preferably, a good reason, if he or she wants to tell me what I can or can't do. Derek was defensive and "smart-alecky"? Anyone with a half a brain would be. I'm familiar with the sorts of small-brain, large-ego power-trippers like Mr. Looy above. They deserve all the mockery we can dish out.
"This is me being smart and you being dumb."
Whatever you say, Pearl Clutchy.
Posted by: Damian | August 9, 2009 12:33 AM
tmaxPA is so "smart" that s/he appears not to understand the difference between defending a persons right to wear something that isn't overtly offensive in any setting (as a t-shirt with "Jesus is a you know what" on the front perhaps would have been), and actually approving of the decision to wear something — however inoffensive to any sane person — in a particular setting, given that, no matter how ridiculous the reaction, it was at least predictable. And there is a difference.
No-one, as far as I am aware, believes that it was a good idea that Derek wore the t-shirt. Perhaps some people do, but that is certainly not implicit in the defense of him doing so. The point, that tmaxPA appears to have missed, is that while anyone with a functioning brain should have known that at least one person would have been offended by that t-shirt, so it was better not to have worn it (as 99% of the participants clearly understood, which gives the lie to the idea that they all approve), that does not mitigate the totally illiberal actions of the "museum" security.
Are we not fighting against the idea that any public display of our non-belief is offensive? Of course, that certainly does not mean that all display's of non-belief are equally inoffensive, but the t-shirt that Derek was wearing shows that the bar, for some people, at least, is not particularly high — that they are practically looking for something to offend them.
The question then becomes: how far are we prepared to go to avoid causing offense? The problem with tmaxPA's position is that it unnecessarily allows the "opposition" to control our actions, and consequently, to define us. It is certainly correct that in a privately owned business that is their legal right, but that does not mean that isn't illiberal, and indeed, it is actually far more offensive on its face. And it's easy to show it, as well. It only requires us to imagine what the world would be like if we all behaved in that way; if all Christians were thrown out of privately owned secular businesses or institutions for wearing anything religious. Of course, that would never happen, no matter how legal it is.
So, while I understand the point that tmaxPA is making, his/her overreaction is not likely to convince anyone, particularly as s/he doesn't appear to have thought about a great deal. The stuff about "young atheists" (which s/he cannot know) is just unnecessary stereotyping.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
August 9, 2009 12:44 AM
foolfodder (#251)
Ahh, I see. Fair, sure, but it shows a lack of awareness on his part to explain here his position on a concern that came up over there without providing context. Not that he's shown much of an understanding about how the internet works so far. Of course, the same might be said of his grasp of reality.
Posted by: NoGuyintheSky | August 9, 2009 12:49 AM
I was there and was disgusted by the security guards attitude.
I wrote about it at my blog. http://www.noguyinthesky.com/
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 12:57 AM
That's it, I'm tracking down and ordering a 'Carl Sagan is my homeboy' t-shirt.
Posted by: wobert | August 9, 2009 1:00 AM
Spose Pebbles is all growed up now, how's she looking?
Everyone knows Mark Looy lives in Bedrock!
Posted by: SC, OM | August 9, 2009 1:08 AM
Yeah. "If it weren't for C-14, I wouldn't date at all" was also pretty funny.
Thanks for the pics, OrbitalMike.
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com
Posted by: Singe | August 9, 2009 1:17 AM
Wow, what with sending a camera guy out to take your picture and inform security should you show up again, these so-called Christians behaved like genuine Scientologists.
Posted by: toth | August 9, 2009 1:30 AM
Looey: Are you aware that there are groups of creationists who lead tours of natural history museums in order to advance their agenda? Do you view this as similar to the students wearing those shirts that you found offensive? If not, why not? If so, do you equally condemn the creationist tours?
Posted by: 386sx | August 9, 2009 1:33 AM
Note the snipe Mr. Looy made about what a "careful researcher" would do. For as we all know, evolutionists are not "careful researchers", because if they were, they would be creationists. Yep, looks like Mr. Looy "pulled another Looy" on the evolutionists.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 9, 2009 2:30 AM
Another amusing fact: one of the people who has tried to post Mark Looy's home address is the very same person who claims to be a member of Pastor Tom's congregation, the annoying prat who usually posts as Shaun. Pastor Tom's indignation is rather inappropriate.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 9, 2009 3:03 AM
Mister Looy.
First, let me say how much I admire your tactic of trying to imply PZ's account lacked research. That's quite a smart (if petty) smear against a scientist. But kudos nonetheless.
Secondly, I found it interesting that the student singled out for attention complied with a request to invert his shirt and yet in questioning security he is painted as 'aggressive'. I'd be interested to know how truly aggressive this slight young man was against your security. Is it possible you are using the word 'aggressive' where 'persistent' might be more appropriate?
Thirdly, I fail to understand from your own account why his behaviour in the bookstore would merit a final warning. You are understandably nervous about the 'opposition' descending upon your exhibition, but if the best your eavesdropping could come up with was that a voice carried a little far in a shop, why was your request for him to keep his voice down not sufficient? You give no reason as to why *subsequent* to this incident you pulled him aside to give a final warning. Without further examples of alleged misbehaviour by Derek, it does look as if you have arbitrarily singled him out a representative of an 'unruly group'--the very thing you claim the incident not to be. His apology to the visiting family does the boy credit.
Going through your account Mister Looy, the abiding impression is that you were looking for excuses to admonish the visiting freethinkers. I could be wrong. It may be that you wanted to avoid the Expelled-like embarrassment of throwing anyone out and behaved with admirable restraint. But your account of the incident and your snide asides to PZ about 'careful research' suggest a peevish and thin-skinned approach.
As a consequence I do not entirely trust your account and look forward to verification of events from other witnesses, which I hope will be forthcoming.
Posted by: aratina cage | August 9, 2009 3:09 AM
It looks to me like Mark Looy targeted Derek for some bullying practice. Mark even admits to following Derek rather closely for some time, which is strange indeed unless he had already picked out Derek as an easy victim. Luckily for us, Derek spoke up instead of rolling over silently, which seems to have made Mark slightly incensed for no good reason.
I also think Tom Estes initially felt he could bully around our esteemed dino-rider, and that didn't turn out so well for Tom no matter how thuggish he and his buddies became. I'd say this was a total win for the atheist horde.
Tom's thugs got out of control and threatening and proved that they are all idiots and liars, and Ken Ham's goons are reduced to whining about a t-shirt slogan, people talking to each other, and adults getting their pictures taken on a fiberglass triceratops. I can't wait for the dissection of the Creation 'Museum' that should be out any day now.
Posted by: Dancaban | August 9, 2009 3:20 AM
Why didn't they just forgive the guy for wearing the T-shirt like they are supposed to?
Posted by: jagannath | August 9, 2009 5:26 AM
You are thinking of christianity, not christianity. There is a difference between them, just as there is the little known christianity that is totally different from the christianity.
Even though it actually shares many precepts with christianity but its adherents say that christianity is true where upon the christianity is not.
It is an easy mistake to make as christianity does state something along those lines you presented it does not actually follow it as vehemently as christianity does.
But one can never forget that christianity actually opposes what christianity says. It would be a major faux pas to say that the christianity and christianity are comparable as we all know christianity is the only true christianity.
Any questions?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 6:17 AM
aratina cage #298
That's my impression as well. Looy was expecting some serious confrontations with the unbelievers and when they didn't materialize, he manufactured one.
In the photographs one can see a couple of people wearing FSM t-shirts. Either Mark Looy and his underlings don't know about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or they decided to ignore those t-shirts. But Derek's t-shirt was declared vestis non grata and he was admonished for "talking too loudly."
I'm sure Looy thought he was acting professionally with Derek. I'm also sure that Looy is a small-minded jerk.
Posted by: Louis | August 9, 2009 7:21 AM
@ PZ #296,
{Hazzard county voice over accent}
Well now. Well, well, well, well. Isn't THAT a little interesting. Who'd have thought that one of them would have pulled that little stunt?*
I'm just gonna reach down to the religion section of my personal library, pick me up a bible and a discussion/concordance or two and look me up things about "bearing false witness".
Oh they're still in there, they haven't been repealed. Can someone enlighten this "Shaun" chap and his chum T.Estes. Preferably with a clue by four. Why can't these folks stick by their own lunatic religion?
Boss Hogg and Cletus look like they gotten themselves into a whole mess o'trouble.
{/Hazzard county voice over accent}
{Jest some good ol' boys, never meaning no harm, jest wanting a theocracy as soon as they can etc}
Louis
* Everyone with an IQ over room temperature and a vague familiarity with the intarwebz.
Posted by: Dancaban | August 9, 2009 7:41 AM
"You are thinking of christianity, not christianity."
Top answer!
Posted by: conelrad | August 9, 2009 7:50 AM
It's deja vu all over again for those of us
who remember all the confrontations between unkempt
hippies & Disney security guards. Ah, those were the days.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 9, 2009 8:30 AM
When someone complains about the person they were criticizing getting defensive, what they are usually saying is:
I am a bully and do not understand that you have the right to refuse to be abused without reason.
Defense is a rational reaction, and often something that is not even a defense, but an explanation, is met with an accusation of defensiveness to try to make the respondent sound irrational, when they aren't.
Posted by: Drosera | August 9, 2009 9:30 AM
Dear Mr. Looy,
I have to commend you for your incredible display of patience. In your place I would have dragged the blasphemous fellow into a freshly plowed field, to have him buried up to his neck, whereupon I would have invited the righteous among the Museum visitors to stone him to death. God bless you.
Posted by: Greg | August 9, 2009 10:59 AM
Well done to all who attended I wish I could have gone too. You all seem to have behaved reasonably (as was to be expected) except for that trouble-maker Derek and his Insidious Tunic of Disruption (requires Lvl 70).
Posted by: Fletch | August 9, 2009 11:51 AM
Here is my contribution:
The Real Creation Story
Posted by: MPW | August 9, 2009 11:59 AM
If I opened a public attraction, open to whoever paid the admission price, that was devoted to promoting what I knew perfectly well was a highly controversial idea, I would expect that people of an opposing view would occasionally show up and express disagreement, vocally and with slogans on clothes and other belongings. As long as they were relatively civil and restrained about their disagreement (which does NOT mean keeping it to a whisper that no other guests can hear), I would consider this entirely unsurprising and appropriate, and perhaps even a feature (rather than a bug). It would certainly be more interesting than a bunch of folks who agreed with each other standing around nodding and smiling at each other. I would think just about any fair-minded person, on whatever side of the issue, would agree with this approach.
It is unsurprising that a significant portion of the administrators at the Creation Museum would be of a different mind, given the thin-skinned, petty authoritarianism and persecution complex that often characterizes culturally conservative Christians in any positions of authority.
What IS surprising is the seriously overheated criticism of the group by tmaxPA, who I take it is not otherwise on the creationist side. I would like to know what tmax finds in my first paragraph to disagree with, or how he or she thinks Derek or any other members of the group violated the principles expressed there.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
August 9, 2009 12:15 PM
While any sane person would look at this as an epic win for the rationalists--with the IDiots reduced to paranoid, knuckle-dragging goons--sane people form a distinct minority in the American electorate these days. Most 'Murkins will identify is "poor Mr. Looy," being bedieged by evil atheist hordes. I wonder where Smoggy is. We need him to tell us how many Jebus points Mssr.s Loo(ne)y and Hamm have won.
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 9, 2009 12:35 PM
I would like to encourage all who participated in the Creotard Museum tour to consider this:
The lord is a fucktard; you should not want.
He maketh you lie, down in green pastures:
he leadeth you to stoopid beside still waters.
He tells you of a soul you do not have.
He leadeth you in the paths of ignorance, for criss-sake!
Yeah, though you walked through the halls of ignorance,
you feared no evil, your wits art brains.
Thy rod and staff art offensive to you.
You preparest your own table...and you desireth no enemies.
You've annointed your head with science, as it is rational.
Surely goodness and mercy will follow you all the days of your life;
and you will dwell in the house of intelligence forever.
Posted by: ChrisKG | August 9, 2009 12:39 PM
Orwell would have been "I told you so" in the face of a thought crime presented at the museum. How dare someone display an "idea" that offended some poor family. What next, gays on TV? Porn on the intertubes? Intermarriages? This is clearly Darwinism run amok! (note: this is sarcasm)
Posted by: Jonathan | August 9, 2009 2:06 PM
As a minister who was there and invited to be with the SSA group, here is my reaction to the whole incident.
http://thomas2026.wordpress.com/
Posted by: cartologist | August 9, 2009 2:08 PM
Did anyone notice whether there was a lightning rod on the building ? I know the chances of it being struck are lottery win odds but wouldn't that just make my day.
Posted by: SerenAur | August 9, 2009 4:12 PM
The t-shirt seems to be 100% cotton but the security guys look suspiciously like they are wearing mixed fibre shirts. Might need some big stones.
Posted by: Erin | August 9, 2009 5:14 PM
First time commenter, long time reader here. I just spent 2+ hours reading the comments section. You guys are witty as all get-out! When I feel disillusioned with the world I like to come here to restore my faith that there are thinking people in the world. (Jonathan, thank you so much for those comments! You remind me of the first pastor of my church (where I no longer go because I am firmly in the agnostic camp and since he retired it's gotten progressively more right-wing)-he actually thought things out rather than blindly following. (I'm agnostic now in large part due to the fact that I had a disabling bicycle accident when I was 5 and got heartily sick of hearing, "This is all part of God's plan." It sure is easy to be self-righteous when you're not the one with the problem.) Apologies for the departure from my main point. Keep up the good work! I'll be reading.
Posted by: OkinSama | August 9, 2009 6:18 PM
wow... how sad...
I bet there's never been a case of a Religious person being thrown out of a REAL museum, for wearing a shirt that says something along the lines of "I believe in God, not this science crap!" LOL
Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 7:34 PM
Johnathan, thanks for posting that link. I have read a few of the posts but since you have been fairly prolific in posting about this I have not decided to go back to the first post and read them in order. I also added a link to the blog to my post about the goings on at the museum.
Posted by: Mike B | August 9, 2009 8:40 PM
It just goes to show you, how, if they can get control of the government on a permenent basis, how these "right wing nuts", will impose their will on everyone. Become a christian or get kicked out, arrested or worse etc...
They are akin to the Taliban, but are christians instead of muslims.
They are very defensive, only because their hypothesis and theory of creationism, stands on the weakest ground. That can be the only reason for their behaviour. Example... when we were children and a child beleived in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus past a certain age, and cried and threw a tantrum when the other children who had reached an age of reason and no longer beleived in such nonsense laughed at them.
I am also old enough to remember when these creationists dismissed dinosaurs and other creatures as mythical or bones placed in the ground by "satan" so men would doubt the word of "god". Now all of a sudden they have museams with dinos and say men interacted with them till the great mythical flood.. Looks like we have to suffer these fools and drag them along kicking and screaming.. Ha ha
Posted by: mike B | August 9, 2009 8:49 PM
Fletch, your creation story is the bomb!! lol
Posted by: Jonathan | August 9, 2009 10:32 PM
Erin,
No problem! Would love to hear your story some time.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 9, 2009 10:47 PM
Damien@287:
Actually, that is precisely the problem: it does. It ENTIRELY mitigates how "illiberal" they were. They were provoked. Purposefully, by some snotty ass of a college kid, the kind of annoying little prick who, when instructed not to wear provocative t-shirts, just can't help but try to press the point.
You know why I'm so mad at this guy? Because PZ isn't, and he damn well should be. We don't need any fake martyrs inviting their persecution.
Posted by: joseph madre | August 10, 2009 12:25 AM
While this behavior bothers me.... Mr. Ham is NO angel. He's a bit arrogant and condescending. I've heard him many times and have many of his books. I think it's an Australian thing. BUT - the fact that he's a jerk doesn't mean that the message of the museum is incorrect. There are many fossil beds all over the world that scientists agree have been caused by floods. Fossils are caused by rapid burial NOT lying around being slowly covered by dust. Many scientist agree that the American west canyons and landscapes were caused by catastrophic events. Hemoglobin has been discovered in dino bones (impossible if millions of years old). There really are intelligent scientists out there who believe in Intelligent Design and a young earth. I apologize on behalf of some of the rest of us who try to follow Jesus the Christ.
http://www.icr.org
http://www.creationresearch.org
http://creation.com
Posted by: Rick R | August 10, 2009 12:35 AM
Joseph- "I apologize on behalf of some of the rest of us who try to follow Jesus the Christ."
So, what does denying science and making up stories about fossil beds and dino bones have to do with being christian?
And what about all those christians who don't deny science? Are they also following your jesus?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 10, 2009 12:45 AM
Dear Brother Joseph Madre,
Bless you for your very Christian apology on behalf of our arrogant and condescending brother Ken Ham. I am sure Brother Ham will be pleased to have you apologize for him to the damned atheists. Like you, I am also quite certain that Brother Ham's compulsion to be a jerk has no bearing, one way or another, on the correctness of the creation museum. As you say, fossils are produced by rapid burial, and who amongst us can doubt that said burials all took place in 2348BC. Personally, I've never believed the volumes of evidence from a variety of sources that the creation of such fossils must have occurred at intervals over hundreds of millions of years. What status have the many thousands of independently conducted tests to determine age, alongside what you and I believe in our hearts?
Yours in Biblical agreement
Smoggy Batzrubble: Missionary to the Atheists
PS [A quiet word to the wise. brother. All your links lead to web sites belonging to discredited loonies. You'll have all the atheists laughing at you. Any chance you could come up with some real proof? You know, peer-reviewed proof published in a reputable scientific journal?]
Posted by: Reynold | August 10, 2009 1:02 AM
tmaxPA @322, you are a fool.
If something like kid's shirt that is enough to bother xians, then they're too bloody thin-skinned to ever leave their houses and churches.
Was there any profanity or disturbing images on the shirt? No. All there was was a message that contradicted the message of the museum. That's it.
The kid in the youtube video mention how some stupid family from Virginia complained how one t-shirt ruined the trip for them! Talk about thin-skined here.
What would life be like if those idiots were running things? You can't tell me that little things like civil rights would be repected, because they've shown that if you so much as dare to voice any message that disagrees with them, you're gone.
When was the last time you've ever heard of a real museum tossing someone just because they wore a shirt that contradicted the museum's message?
Damien @287 has it exactly right when he says:
Are we not fighting against the idea that any public display of our non-belief is offensive? Of course, that certainly does not mean that all display's of non-belief are equally inoffensive, but the t-shirt that Derek was wearing shows that the bar, for some people, at least, is not particularly high — that they are practically looking for something to offend them.
It takes very little for those superstitious clowns to call us "militant"...they'll go looking for any reason to shut us up as the AIG "museum" has shown.
What the hell would you have us do? Just sit back and do nothing? Use your brain. What would be the logical consequence of constantly backing down to people who want to shut you up?
Fuck that noise!
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 10, 2009 1:03 AM
joseph madre wrote:
Excuse me? I'm Australian and I can guarantee you that Ken Ham cannot palm off his failings as a human being on his country - or state for that matter - of origin. We don't appreciate his kind of crap here - why else do you think he had to move to the US to profit from peddling lies to the credulous?
Now, I'm happy to admit (it would be hard to deny, given the evidence) that I, myself, am both arrogant and condescending, but I'm atypical as well - but in a very different way.
All I can say to this is that intelligence and intellectual honesty do not always walk hand in hand.
These 'scientists' have no evidence to support their claims and, until they can present some, will remain what the scientific establishment appear to refer to as 'kooks'.
Posted by: J | August 10, 2009 4:13 AM
It must have been traumatic for the poor staff to encounter a single visitor who was "smart-alecky" and one that kept filming "like I didn’t exist". Boo hoo.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 10, 2009 4:31 AM
J wrote:
But, but, you just don't understand the terrible and desperate situation the staff was in:
The museum staff only had the almighty and eternal God on their side, while the student had *gasp* a t-shirt with words printed on it!
Posted by: Jennifer Parfenovics | August 10, 2009 4:44 AM
I too am an Australian. I too feel insulted by the 'Joseph' slur on all Australians. I can't understand the 'Joseph' ad hominen attacks / comments about Ken Ham . The attacks are not instanced by examples of when you found him arrogant etc.
What overwhemled and saddened me at this blog of PZ Myers' is the abusive depth and rabid hatred for anyone who has a different worldview to the atheistic evolutionary Darwinian belief system.
So many young people like Derek with totally closed minds who have been indoctrinated with such anti-Christian hatred. Mr Myers do you feel proud to have produced this outcome in whole generations of students ?
I am reading Dr.Jerry Bergman's book ;' Slaughter of the Dissidents ; The shocking truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters.' Of course Mr Myer you feature prominently in this book and in that stated agenda. Do the names Dr Caroline Crocker , Bryan Leonard and James Randi mean anything to you ?
All I can do is pray that some here will investigate the real claims of Biblical Young Earth Creationism and the absolute authority of the Word of God and come to know the reality and love of your creator and redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ.
From the age of 15 till 30 I spent 15 years in the dark wilderness of vicious anti Christian atheism. Believe me I know where you are all at and will pray you have the strength and God given sense to not stay in that place.
Please go to the excellent Australian website; www.creation.com and God bless. Look up ' Two Toned Twins ' and ' Where are all the People ? ' Do the real maths about population demograghics !
As most of you are avid believers in AGW go to www.answers in genesis.org and watch a 50 minute video called ' Global Warming ' ; the Biblical Christian viewpoint. See if you can at least watch something to disturb and challenge your set in concrete ideas !
Posted by: russ124bc | August 10, 2009 4:48 AM
joseph madre wrote:
While this behavior bothers me.... Mr. Ham is NO angel. He's a bit arrogant and condescending. I've heard him many times and have many of his books. I think it's an Australian thing.
I'll thank you not to tar every Australian with the same porcine smelling brush as that of Ken Ham. I know we have as many loonies in Australia as any where else in the world, but I'm grateful that one of the looniest has left our shores, although I do feel sympathy for you poor bastards who have to put up with his crap.
Posted by: russ124bc | August 10, 2009 4:58 AM
#330
See what I mean, we got 'em too.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 10, 2009 5:02 AM
Goodness, and one of ours, not even american....how embarrassing.
Jennifer @ 330,
hint: disagreement != hate , and criticism != abuse
And dont pray for me, or I might have to insult you to.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 5:24 AM
All I can do is pray - Jennifer Parfenovics
Yes, it's only too evident that you are unable to think - or for that matter, spell.
Posted by: John Morales | August 10, 2009 5:30 AM
Jennifer @330:
I don't believe you, but I do pity you.
Posted by: Reynold | August 10, 2009 5:33 AM
Jennifer Parfenovics @330:
What overwhelmed and saddened me at this blog of PZ Myers' is the abusive depth and rabid hatred for anyone who has a different worldview to the atheistic evolutionary Darwinian belief system.
Lady, go to Ken Ham's blog. Note that you can't post there. Compare that to here. Anyone can post anything here, unless it gets really bad, but guess what?
We have the right to call out bullshit when we see it. Those who disagree have the right to defend their opposing views here.
Something that's not possible at Ken's blog, or his museum.
What would you have us do, just shut up and not say anything?
Pike off. That will never happen.
Posted by: Reynold | August 10, 2009 5:46 AM
While you're here Jennifer, why don't you tell us of all the instances at real museums where some xian or young-earther was turned away or even just told to put his shirt on inside out because they were wearing a shirt that contradicted the message the museum was trying to put out?
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 10, 2009 5:47 AM
Translation: If I were projecting any harder, I'd be able to write my name on the moon !!1!
Posted by: echidna | August 10, 2009 5:49 AM
Jennifer@330,
You may need translation: " !=" means "does not equal".
There is a lot of money around for Creation research, and I'm sure the Templeton Foundation is only one source of funds. The problem is that it is very difficult to provide evidence for something that didn't happen. Evidence for creation is not ignored, because it doesn't exist.
You are mistaken if you detect a hatred for Christians, or any other religion per se. What you will find is a deep disgust for the act of deliberately ignoring reality in favour of an idea that has no evidence to back it, and then spreading lies to promote a false world view (e.g.that there is archeological evidence supporting the reigns of Kings David and Solomon, or for that matter Jesus).
Finally, there is definitely a defensiveness against lunatics who lie about science and scientists.
What these people, who on this blog are almost exclusively Fundamentalist Christians, fail to realise that they are living proof that their god does not exist. If you need to deny reality (e.g. evolution, geology, cosmology) in order to accommodate your beliefs, then there is something wrong with your beliefs.
It's that simple. No hatred necessary.
If you then need to call the world's scientists intolerant liars and fools, you can't expect them to feel kindly towards you. However, show some evidence, and the whole situation would change in an instant.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 10, 2009 6:01 AM
Jennifer Parfenovics: since you accuse others on this blog of having closed minds:
Can you accurately explain what the Theory of Evolution says? If so, please do so.
Please list all the books you have read which present the scientific case for the Theory of Evolution.
Please list all the books you have read which criticize Creationism.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 6:12 AM
All of my rabid hatred has nothing to do with atheism, evolution or protecting a 'darwinian belief system', it's that the scientifically-illiterate time and time again come on here and presume that their ignorance trumps anyone else's knowledge, and show that they don't even have the slightest desire to understand the topic at hand. I've been on this site for just over a year now, and with all the creationists that have come here over that time, not a single one actually understood what evolution is.So each time another creationist comes on here, it's straw man attack after straw man attack on evolution, yet none of them are even willing to try to understand what evolution actually means. They play an incredible game of intellectual dishonesty, constantly shift the goalposts, don't understand the first thing people are responding to them with, then after all this they declare victory and move off...
A year here and not a single creationist has shown anything but supreme arrogance, no touch of humility, no sense of fallibility, and no desire to actually learn about what they are attacking. It would be like me characterising Christianity by saying they working a giant space lizard that created time by giving birth to itself, then spawning mankind by chewing off its own arm, whereby redemption from the crime of having genitalia came from a poker game between dogs whereby the poodle went all in and lost so one must chew their own cud every thursday... sound absurd? That's how absurd every single creationist on here in the last year has characterised evolution.
They don't understand, they have no desire to understand, and somehow we're meant to to be nice to those arrogant fucktards? Fuck that shit. I have no time for liars, especially liars in the name of a religion.
Posted by: Drosera | August 10, 2009 6:14 AM
Jennifer Parfenovics @330,
You are so right! Until very recently I was a really militant atheist. I even said unkind things about a true Christian who was courageous enough to comment here, Pastor Tom Estes. But then one of the heathens on this weblog posted a whole series of images from the Creation Museum. Those really opened my eyes, I can tell you.
First of all, there were pictures of panels where the explanations of so-called 'real scientists' were juxtaposed with those of Creation Scientist. On one side (not coincidentally the left) you see the tortuous and incomprehensible nonsense cooked up by college professors and similar ignorant people, on the other side the crystal clear and perfectly logical elucidations by Creation Scientists. What a world of difference!
But the real epiphany (I hope this word is not too difficult for you, dear Jenn) came when I saw the solution to a problem that had always bothered me, and which up to now had prevented me from accepting the Scripture as the Word of God. It is this: What happened when the Flood subsided, and all those animals in the Ark had to return to the continents where they belonged? How could elephants get from Mount Ararat to tropical Africa? How could kangaroos jump all the way back to your Australian outback? How could a hundred thousand species of tropical beetle make it to their beloved Amazonian rain forest? Not to mention Birds of Paradise, penguins, polar bears, dart poison frogs, etc., etc.
Think about it for a while. I am sure you will never come up with the brilliant solution that was presented in one of those images from the Creation Museum, and which literally took my breath away.
Logs.
Yes, logs. Because of the Flood, whole forests, millions and millions of trees, had become uprooted and were floating on the surface of that giant diluvial and now tranquil ocean. These formed rafts and floating bridges that easily allowed elephants and lions to walk back to Africa, kangaroos to hop over to Australia, and penguins to waggle all the way to Antarctica. The logic is irrefutable. It makes so much more sense than all this talk about millions and millions of years of random evolution. Don't you agree?
I do not hesitate to recommend Mr. Ken Ham for the Nobel price for Geology, as well as those for Biology, Physics, and Chemistry. The originality of his insights in all these fields is beyond measure.
By the way, Mr. Looy, if you are reading this, may I ask you a question? Are you by any chance of Dutch ancestry? I ask this because your name looks Dutch. Being a Dutchman myself, I am proud to see 'one of us' at your position. I am almost ashamed to admit that I was borne and raised in Amsterdam, that cesspool of depravity, that modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. It is heart warming that honorable men like you present the other side of the Dutch. Thank you for that.
But I do hope that next time you are not so lenient when people mock our Lord within your premises. Our Christian morality requires us to do as He requests from us, even when this may give ammunition to the godless hordes on weblogs like these. God bless you and Jennifer.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 10, 2009 8:07 AM
Really? That did it for you?
Now, see, what started my thinking that perhaps Creationism was true, and caused me to doubt both evolution and atheism, was Ham's smack-down of PZ when Ham described how PZ was so terribly wrong about the parking situation and hospitality tent at the museum. If my evil overlord, PZ, can't get critical details like that right, he's probably wrong about evolution and atheism too.
Plus, as Ham so damningly points out, PZ made these mistakes when he was being "boastful." Contrast that to Ham's modesty when he notes so, um, modestly about the museum's parking and attendance:
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 8:24 AM
I have been doing exactly this for the vast majority of the non-military days of my entire adult life, either directly or indirectly.
Sooner or later you would think that some evidence, some tiny piece of evidence, maybe at least just one lonely observation, would turn up supporting a young earth.
So far: crickets.
Maybe it's you Jennifer. Maybe you can be the one who turns on the spotlight in the dark room. Can you provide the observation? The datum? The piece of evidence?
Can you provide an observation that either:
1., supports a young earth?
2., falsifies an old earth?
Posted by: echidna | August 10, 2009 8:25 AM
Drosera, Bastion of Sass,
Lovely poests.
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 8:34 AM
Kel, if you and I are ever in the same place (and I really hope that this someday happens), I'm buying.
Posted by: wildlifer | August 10, 2009 8:47 AM
@342
Liar.
Posted by: Stanton | August 10, 2009 8:56 AM
It is true that Drosera was a militant atheist: he used to go around burning churchladies, and forcing gays to marry!Sometimes people, too!
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 8:57 AM
awesome. Though I think I'll have to buy you a few for your excellent work teaching geology.Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 9:03 AM
Well then, we're gonna end up being rather drunk, aren't we?
YAY!
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 10, 2009 9:13 AM
I think we've still got a pretty good sensible-poster-to-woo-soaked-kook ratio with the Australians who come here. Obviously I wish it were even higher - but it's still far less scary here than the US.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 9:37 AM
Well I'm going to be there I'm in still in my 20s... of course. That was a given before it began!Posted by: Drosera | August 10, 2009 9:49 AM
Stanton,
Please, don't remind me of my dark past. I have seen the light now.
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 10:05 AM
Normally, I'd say that the following is off topic, but since we're broadly talking about the creation funhouse, I submit that it isn't:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html
We can all say plenty about Bill Maher, but I still found this piece darkly amusing.
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 10:08 AM
*cue Mr. Burns voice*
Exxxcellent.
Looking forward to it.
Posted by: wildlifer | August 10, 2009 10:29 AM
... like a deer in the headlights.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 10, 2009 10:40 AM
Drosera wrote:
I supposed then you'd prefer we not mention your history of roasting, then eating, babies.
Posted by: ShadowFace | August 10, 2009 10:51 AM
Another group member and myself were silenced and told to disperse by the museum director with the awful tie as we tried to explain CELL DIVISION and mutation to a "museum"goer who had previously engaged another group member who had moved on. It was a perfectly civil and polite discussion, with both parties listening to and attempting to understand the other party. After a few minutes of explaining why their model of cellular evolution was wrong, the other group member had a hand laid on him and the director said "We aren't engaging in dialogue; that's what you agreed to(Even though the other patron had engaged us first)." Not wanting to cause a scene or be the sacrificial lamb they were looking for, we moved on quickly.
If I recall correctly, the creationist guy we were talking to was rather disappointed with the director that we were silenced, and he met the other group member outside on the patio to discuss the topic further.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 10, 2009 11:14 AM
May I join you? I've finally completed my radiation therapy, and I want to celebrate.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 10, 2009 11:16 AM
THIS WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A CONFRONTATION. They were your HOSTS, not "the opposition".
Reynold@326 gets a more extensive response:
Indeed I am, as are we all. Please get to your point.
You were somehow unaware that religionists are thin-skinned? And you call me a fool? Yes, they are notoriously both defensive and offensive. And I notice they did not leave anywhere: WE WENT TO THEM.
Yes. Please check the dictionary for the term "profane". Only an ignorant git would not recognize the words "NO GOD" in big letters as being profane to a bunch of christians. And only a silly dufus would try to defend it.
Hey goober THIS ISN'T A REAL MUSEUM. We knew that going in. So what exactly was the point of proving that atheists can be boorish? You're trying to convince everyone there that atheists are boorish? Good plan.
"Are we not fighting against the idea that any public display of our non-belief is offensive?"
No, we are not. We are fighting against the idea that it being offensive is a basis for not displaying it. This was not, however, a public display, as nobody was complaining because young Mr. I-Know-Better was walking around in public. He was walking around on private property, under the PROMISE that he would not purposefully try to offend other guests. And then he showed that it isn't only religionists who know how to lie, and set us back who know how far, at least in the eyes of that family from Virginia.
If you are going to offend the religious, do so incidentally. If you put even the tiniest effort into it, or make it seem as if you are doing it on purpose, then you, basically, lose. Not "someone", but EVERYONE else on that trip should have known how offensive that shirt was and INSISTED he turn it inside out BEFORE showing up at the Creoseum.A) Keeping your promises and being aware of how your choices affect those around you.
B) Recognizing that being purposefully offensive is very very rarely going to be an optimum strategy for making your point.
C) Successfully winning the debate based on non-emotional grounds.
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 11:19 AM
Oh please, Bastion. You should know that you were already invited...
But fucking congratulations on getting through with the radiation. I cannot imagine what that must feel like.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 11:24 AM
Which state are you in Josh if you don't mind me asking?
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 11:32 AM
I'm in the Nation's Capital. You should come for a visit. We've got good food, good beer, and good rocks. I've also been told that we've got a museum or two within easy striking distance...
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 11:38 AM
Sounds like a plan.
There's the slight possibility of a New York holiday next year (got to negotiate with the OH), so hopefully I can make the trip down to DC and check out the Smithsonian among other things.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 10, 2009 11:40 AM
I suspected we lived within easy driving distance of each other when we were discussing the Sidling Hill cut.
We are so getting together some day--when I'm able to shake some of this damn fatigue.
But if we meet in DC to go drinking, who's going to drive me home?
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 11:42 AM
That's great. If not, and if it were congruent with your plans, my coming up to NY from DC would be trivial...
Posted by: OrbitalMike | August 10, 2009 11:50 AM
I was standing near Derek when he made the comment about not spending any more money. Apparently, that's what the Virginia family was upset about. My son was also with me at the time, and he also remarked that we shouldn't waste any money at "such a silly place". So my 11 year old, whose comments where made in a loud, penetrating tone, didn't offend that family from Virginia, but Derek's quieter comment did offend? I doubt that.
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 11:51 AM
We'll just stay up until you're/we're sober again. There is a solution to every problem.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 10, 2009 12:08 PM
Except that you're going to have to explain why a t-shirt which reads "There probably is no God..." is so much more grieviously offensive than a t-shirt which reads Atheist in this case. After all, the latter is a de facto declaration of the former. That a statement of the probable non-existance of God is strictly a profanity may be true, but it should be an incredibly mild challenge to the sensibilities of any Christian with the courage of their convictions.
If wearing the shirt was an act of deliberate offense, then it certainly relied on the capacity of the targets to be easily offended. I can easily image that the wearer considered it more an affirmation of his own opinion, and that (at worst) it might be challenging rather than offensive.
Your characterisation of the wearer of the shirt as a trouble-maker is somewhat at odds even with the account given by Mark Looy, who points out that the guy complied with every request made of him. Actually, the only discourtesy he highlights is that he was "defensive and aggressive" in questioning why the t-shirt was offensive and "defensive and smart-alecky" when he was cautioned about his declaration that he wouldn't spend any more money. (In this context, I'm unsure what is meant by "aggressive" or "smart-alecky". I'm fairly sure that any real aggression would have been met with an invitation to leave; given the treatment of the videographer, it seems that they were dealing firmly with transgressors - as is their right.)
Pffft. Unless they were of particularly poor character, then they would have accepted the apology they were given. (Again, offering such an apology seems rather inconsistent with setting out to deliberately offend.)
Posted by: SC, OM | August 10, 2009 12:12 PM
But you'll never compete with our dazzling nightlife!
***
New posts up:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 10, 2009 12:15 PM
I'm grievously offended by my own typos...
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 12:29 PM
Please. As cool as your neck of the woods is, I'm not sure that statement holds up.
Just blame them all on Rev.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 10, 2009 12:37 PM
Um, joke recognition FAIL. :)
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Carlie | August 10, 2009 12:51 PM
Ooo, we've got another Real True Christian Creationist! Perfect, because I have a question (if she ever comes back). Jennifer P., yesterday afternoon two brothers, aged 4 and 7, wandered away from their house in southeastern Missouri. They were found dead in the river this morning. Jennifer, why did God create those two boys just to let them die like that?
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 1:01 PM
FUCK!
*headdesk*
Posted by: wildlifer | August 10, 2009 1:53 PM
WTF is up w/the concern trolls? Did they take a wrong turn at the Intersection?
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 10, 2009 4:43 PM
No, no I'm not. I need merely point out that it is.
The shirt, by the way, said "NO GOD" in huge letters. There was some other text, which was irrelevant.
No shit, sherlock. Now, you tell me, does the fact that this was obviously known in advance make the deliberate act of offense more offensive, or less offensive? I hope you can see clearly from this logic that the one thing it DOESN'T do is make it "not offensive". It was offensive. It was purposefully offensive. What was your point again?
I do not care what Mark Looy said. I have not read what anyone has said. It does not matter. The kid knew (or should have known, and should have been dissuaded from wearing it whether he understood why or not) the shirt would offend. He wore it anyway. He is therefore a selfish immature git. Case closed.
Once again, with all due sarcasm, I must applaud the amazingly insightful understanding of the situation that my atheist friends have shown. Fucking A.
THEY'RE RELIGIONISTS. Of COURSE they are of "particularly poor character". Once again, you KNEW THIS GOING IN!
More and more this is looking like a snide and stupid way to try to bully "the opposition". "Why are you hitting yourself?" the snot-nosed kid says, over and over, while provoking exactly the response he's mocking.
And as for the tired complaints that my position is a "concern troll", those complaints themselves fit the description far better than my posts. Particularly given that your intent is to stifle the discussion, while mine is to encourage it.
Posted by: Reynold | August 10, 2009 5:29 PM
tmaxPA at 377:
More and more this is looking like a snide and stupid way to try to bully "the opposition". "Why are you hitting yourself?" the snot-nosed kid says, over and over, while provoking exactly the response he's mocking.
And as for the tired complaints that my position is a "concern troll", those complaints themselves fit the description far better than my posts. Particularly given that your intent is to stifle the discussion, while mine is to encourage it.
Bull! You are lying through your teeth/keyboard, whatever. You have no interest in anything other than just rolling over for those people. The people here are just expressing their views. You're just whinging about it, much like your friends at the Creation Museum.
You'd have us just sit back and not say or do anything that could possibly offend those people. The kid was NOT being "snot-nosed". Even Looy said that he wasn't acting badly. Oh that's right...you don't care what he said...Damn the facts, eh?
You on the other hand are ready to hang the guy just because he dared to wear a shirt that expressed his opinion.
Tell me...Would you ever protest whenever a xian wears a creationist shirt to a regular museum? Would you consider that offensive? If the shirt said that the earth was young and there "probably WAS a god" would you complain that the xian was being "snot-nosed"?
Posted by: Reynold | August 10, 2009 5:37 PM
Well, this is the third time I've tried posting this, we'll see how it goes...my last message got through
----
tmaxPA at #360:
To tell you the truth, I think that Bernard Bumner at #369 has dealt with you well enough, but I'll add a few bits in anyway.
If you are going to offend the religious, do so incidentally. If you put even the tiniest effort into it, or make it seem as if you are doing it on purpose, then you, basically, lose. Not "someone", but EVERYONE else on that trip should have known how offensive that shirt was and INSISTED he turn it inside out BEFORE showing up at the Creoseum.
Oh please. Those people have no qualms about offending anyone else, especially athiests. I say again, if they're that bloody thin-skinned, that one measely shirt that says that their god is "probably" not real is "offensive", screw them. We have to put up with their crap constantly.
Compared to the way that they portray us, we ARE polite! Do you think that they'd decide to stop even if they absolutely could not find anything to get "offended" about during the visit?
These people are professional propagandists. If they couldn't find anything to get upset about, they'd just make it up. Seriously, how often have any of you ever heard of teachers saying that in school, day in and day out?
If you want to see just how much these people like to both slander atheists, just read this:
Mr Linnell also comments that 'even their children were quiet and studious.' For this I personally apologize, tongue firmly planted in cheek. Maybe for the next major conference (January 2004—book now) we should import children more in line with the often rude, noisy and inattentive rabble which teachers face on a daily basis, in the State humanism/evolutionism-soaked ‘education’ system.
That's a huge slander against pretty much every teacher out there. Do you hear any complaints about that? Yet look at what the authour of that "article" finds to complain about in the Aussie media's portrayal of them:
As a sometime-photographer, I was tickled to see that the Good Weekend photography was just as tilted as the story. See Peter Sparrow on page 18, and Ken Ham on page 21. Both these gentlemen were photographed from below, for a peculiar effect. To belittle, photograph from above; to make them larger-than-life monsters, photograph from below!
We have to put up with that constant barrage of shit, yet we're not allowed to present a message that "probably" disagrees with them?
Think! To those kinds of people, just being an atheist is all it takes to "offend" them.
What, do you think that if that kid hadn't had worn that shirt, that those people would have just decided that they've gotten atheists all wrong and would stop demonizing us in the public sphere? Bullshit. They've been doing that for decades.
Yet, when anyone dares to contradict them, they get all whiny about it.
tmaxPA quoting me earlier:
What would be the logical consequence of constantly backing down to people who want to shut you up?
A) Keeping your promises and being aware of how your choices affect those around you.
They DID keep their promise. They didn't do anything wrong. The AIG bullshit artists were looking for something to be "offended" by.
Read the bloody posts on the blogs that talk about the trip, howsabout? Even when people did nothing but talk quietly they were treated with suspicion.
B) Recognizing that being purposefully offensive is very very rarely going to be an optimum strategy for making your point.
How stupid is this?? Just wearing of one shirt that contradicts their views is "purposefully offensive"? If you agree with that, then you're no better than they are: In their, and in your view, it seems: The only way that atheists can be non "offensive" is to shut up and not say or do anything that dares to disagree with xian views, no matter what.
As I said before, think: What kind of place would be the result if we all just rolled over and played dead for them like that?
Read some history. That is NOT how any civil rights victories were ever won!
C) Successfully winning the debate based on non-emotional grounds.
No problem: We're the ones with the evidence on our side, and as for those goons, they've just exposed how cowardly and intolerant they are.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 6:33 PM
Can we take all religious symbols as being offensive to atheists and ask people to remove them in our presence? After all, they are highly offensive...Posted by: Reynold (the stubborn poster) | August 10, 2009 6:43 PM
tmaxPA at #360:
To tell you the truth, I think that Bernard Bumner at #369 has dealt with you well enough, but I'll add a few bits in anyway.
If you are going to offend the religious, do so incidentally. If you put even the tiniest effort into it, or make it seem as if you are doing it on purpose, then you, basically, lose. Not "someone", but EVERYONE else on that trip should have known how offensive that shirt was and INSISTED he turn it inside out BEFORE showing up at the Creoseum.
Oh please. Those people have no qualms about offending anyone else, especially athiests. I say again, if they're that bloody thin-skinned, that one measely shirt that says that their god is "probably" not real is "offensive", screw them. We have to put up with their crap constantly.
Compared to the way that they portray us, we ARE polite! Do you think that they'd decide to stop even if they absolutely could not find anything to get "offended" about during the visit?
These people are professional propagandists. If they couldn't find anything to get upset about, they'd just make it up. Seriously, how often have any of you ever heard of teachers saying that in school, day in and day out?
cont'd
Posted by: Reynold (now I can quit trying!) | August 10, 2009 6:49 PM
reply to tmaxPA at #360 con'td:
If you want to see just how much these people like to both slander atheists, just read this:
Mr Linnell also comments that 'even their children were quiet and studious.' For this I personally apologize, tongue firmly planted in cheek. Maybe for the next major conference (January 2004—book now) we should import children more in line with the often rude, noisy and inattentive rabble which teachers face on a daily basis, in the State humanism/evolutionism-soaked ‘education’ system.
That's a huge slander against pretty much every teacher out there. Do you hear any complaints about that? Yet look at what the authour of that "article" finds to complain about in the Aussie media's portrayal of them:
As a sometime-photographer, I was tickled to see that the Good Weekend photography was just as tilted as the story. See Peter Sparrow on page 18, and Ken Ham on page 21. Both these gentlemen were photographed from below, for a peculiar effect. To belittle, photograph from above; to make them larger-than-life monsters, photograph from below!
We have to put up with that constant barrage of shit, yet we're not allowed to present a message that "probably" disagrees with them?
Think! To those kinds of people, just being an atheist is all it takes to "offend" them.
What, do you think that if that kid hadn't had worn that shirt, that those people would have just decided that they've gotten atheists all wrong and would stop demonizing us in the public sphere? Bullshit. They've been doing that for decades.
Yet, when anyone dares to contradict them, they get all whiny about it.
tmaxPA quoting me earlier:
What would be the logical consequence of constantly backing down to people who want to shut you up?
A) Keeping your promises and being aware of how your choices affect those around you.
They DID keep their promise. They didn't do anything wrong. The AIG bullshit artists were looking for something to be "offended" by.
Read the bloody posts on the blogs that talk about the trip, howsabout? Even when people did nothing but talk quietly they were treated with suspicion.
B) Recognizing that being purposefully offensive is very very rarely going to be an optimum strategy for making your point.
How stupid is this?? Just wearing of one shirt that contradicts their views is "purposefully offensive"? If you agree with that, then you're no better than they are: In their, and in your view, it seems: The only way that atheists can be non "offensive" is to shut up and not say or do anything that dares to disagree with xian views, no matter what.
As I said before, think: What kind of place would be the result if we all just rolled over and played dead for them like that?
Read some history. That is NOT how any civil rights victories were ever won!
C) Successfully winning the debate based on non-emotional grounds.
No problem: We're the ones with the evidence on our side, and as for those goons, they've just exposed how cowardly and intolerant they are.
Posted by: Warren | August 10, 2009 7:09 PM
On the plus side, he'll be able to come in again on the third day.
Posted by: Edwin Kagin | August 10, 2009 9:09 PM
Thoughts on the Visit to the “Creation Museum” With PZ Myers:
1) An idea is not responsible for the people who accept it.
2) The visiting Atheists, despite any other characteristics, were polite and orderly.
3) The staff members of the facility, despite any other characteristics, were polite and courteous.
4) The bomb sniffing (or dope sniffing as the case may be) dogs were beautiful and well behaved black labs.
5) The term “Christ like,” used by Ken Ham in reference to the staff of the facility, is probably misplaced in that the Christ was not known to carry a Glock semi-automatic firearm.
6) The artifact sounded outside of the gates as PZ got his fracking cracker, his shot of Kentucky bourbon, and his Kentucky Colonel commission, was not a ram’s horn but a water buffalo horn.
7) The “Creation Museum” exists to powerfully present, as factual and scientific, an elaborate depiction of a false mythical explanation for the existence of human beings on the Earth.
8) It is a fact, well known and foundational to science, that humans have evolved from simpler forms of life over a period of millions of years.
9) Teaching children that the world works in ways other than it does is a virulent form of child abuse that could, if such teachings are widely accepted, lead humans into a new dark age.
10) It is important for rational people to visit the “Creation Museum” in that this is the only way they can fully understand the potential danger of this ignorance to the future of the human race.
Edwin Kagin
August 10, 2009
Posted by: Smidgy | August 11, 2009 12:31 AM
tmaxPA #360:
Your point was apparantly that the group shouldn't have done anything to offend them. What did Derek actually do? He wore a shirt that indicated he thought there was probably no God - in other words, that he was an atheist. As such, atheists EXISTING offends them.
Yes, we went to their facility that they chose to open to the public. ALL the public, not just those parts of it that don't offend them by simply existing.
Sorry, in my dictionary, it says that profane means:
The shirt did not treat 'something sacred with abuse, irreverence or contempt', it simply stated that this particular 'something sacred' probably didn't actually exist.
Sorry, as I said above, the shirt only shows that atheists exist. If simply existing is 'being boorish', by your standards, then, yes, the group were trying to convince everyone that atheists are 'boorish'.
As I said above, the mere existence of atheists is enough to offend some of these people, so, if that promise had actually been made, which, as I understand it, it hadn't, as they only promised to act civilly and not be deliberately disruptive, in order to actually abide by it, he would have had to suddenly stop existing.
Well, sorry, but I see nothing 'offensive' in Derek's shirt. Nor would I find anything offensive in someone wearing a shirt that says 'Jesus Lives', or something similar. As I said, the mere existence of atheists is enough to offend some of these folk, so if the group were to make decisions as to what's acceptable based on what might, possibly, maybe, offend someone, they should have not bothered going at all.
...which nobody else recognises or is aware of because you've successfully been shut up.
So you don't make your point at all for fear of being 'offensive'.
...but nobody is aware of that victory, because you've successfully been shut up.
tmaxPA #377:
Sorry, yes you are. You see, wearing a shirt that says 'there is probably no God' is a way of saying 'I am an atheist'. Wearing a shirt that says 'Atheist' is another way of saying, 'I am an atheist'. Why is one more 'offensive' than the other? I see no difference.
Would that be in much the same way that Darwin said that the idea the eye evolved seems 'absurd in the highest degree possible', but there was also some other text, which was irrelevant?
What about if he wasn't actually an atheist, but was wearing a shirt that said 'there is NO GOD but me?' Would the 'other text' still be 'irrelevant'? Would it still be 'offensive'?
Again, I'll make the point that, to some, his EXISTENCE is 'offensive'. Is he a 'selfish immature git' for EXISTING?
Posted by: Drosera | August 11, 2009 1:00 AM
It feels so good to be a Creationist
No more hypotheses and ugly facts
I pity the hell-bound atheist
Unaware of St. Paul's Acts
My brain is empty now, but filled with light
All that I need to know I capture
From the Bible, God's Words so bright
And I just wait for the rapture
Posted by: Doctor Siegfried | August 11, 2009 1:51 AM
My apologies for intruding here. I am Dr. Siegfried Schwanzenlecker, a psychiatrist who is currently treating a patient who may be known to some of you under his assumed name Drosera.
In spite of certain restrictions imposed on him, he just managed to post from the computer in my office some kind of poem here. I am sorry for this, it should not have occurred. I will see to it that it does not happen again.
Mr. Drosera is a sad case. He suffers from ARD (acute religious delusions), brought about, according to his wife, by watching images from a certain museum on the internet. To give an indication of the severity of his illness, he is presently able to read many pages from the website called Answers in Genesis while retaining his composure. Normally, I take it as a hopeful sign when similar patients at least smile at some of the material presented at that site, while hysterical laughter is evidence of complete recovery.
Mr. Drosera still has a long way to go. I trust that it will not be necessary to perform a lobotomy; that will really be my last resort.
It may be of interest to my fellow scientists here that I now treat him with an experimental medicine, theofugine, that I developed myself. It is based on an extract from a rare herb that I discovered near a remote village in Papua New Guinea. What put me on the trail of this remarkable plant was the curious fact that, contrary to all other villages in New Guinea, the inhabitants of this village displayed absolutely no superstitions or religious beliefs. It was a small triumph when I was finally able to show that this could be attributed to the occurrence of this herb near the water supply of said village. Preliminary results show that my medicine might also have remarkable effects on drug addicts and even Alzheimer patients.
Anyway, my hope is that a few applications of theofugine will take out the offending neurons in Mr. Drosera's brain and that he will soon be able to post here again as he used to, that is, without delusions, religious or otherwise.
I may add that I am currently treating several well known religious figures, but considerations of privacy naturally force me to refrain from disclosing personal details. Regrettably, for most of the more severe cases the prognosis is decidedly bleak. They will probably die fully confident that God is awaiting them with outstretched arms and with all his angels lined up in anticipation like cheerleaders. In this respect the case of Mr. Drosera is among the lightest that I have encountered in my practice. I am confident that a full recovery is still possible.
Posted by: Doctor Siegfried | August 11, 2009 2:35 AM
One more thing (sorry if I sound like Lt. Columbo). If Mr. Ken Ham, pastor Tom Estes, Mr. Looy and Jennifer Parfenovics have read my previous message, I would like to reassure them that even their cases, although obviously far more severe than that of Mr. Drosera, are not hopeless. I have seen remarkable recoveries from ARD, and with this new medicine the prospects are certainly better than they ever were before.
I am listed in the telephone directory of Vienna, Austria, in case you believe that you need help (and I think you do). You can be assured of my absolute discretion. Other readers of this weblog are of course also welcome to consult me on their ARD problem. I am not cheap, but the results of my treatment will change your life.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 11, 2009 2:56 AM
Poor Drosera, someone cut open the top of his skull, scooped out his brain and place a lit candle in his head.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 11, 2009 6:17 AM
Irrelevant? Context is everything; this was a young man wearing a t-shirt with a slogan designed by a prominent humanist organisation as an affirmative statement about atheism. In that context, it is perfectly possible that he wore the t-shirt as a statement of his philosophy, rather than to deliberately offend by attacking anyone else's. All of his subsequent actions are much more compatible with this interpretation than with yours.
You might understand this, had you not decided that;
It is my fervent hope that you are not on the jury, should I ever have to face trial.
Most of my religious friends are perfectly nice people in most respects, even those of the evangelical bent. Much of their ideology is offensive, but in practice they tend to be much more tolerant and kind than their rhetoric might suggest. They show poor judgement, and they lack many critical reasoning skills, but they are more often than not personable, friendly, and generous. They are prone to being judgemental, which is unsurprising, but they are not necessarily of "particularly poor character". I reject your bigotry.
Religion is the problem, much more so than the religious.
More and more? How so? How has anything changed by virtue of this discussion taking place? More so, how can that be if "the opposition", whoever that is, don't themselves feel bullied? Where are those complaints?
Is this not discussion? Perhaps your intent only extends to the discussion lasting long enough for you to be declared the "winner"?
As a wise man once wrote, "Case closed".
Posted by: Greg | August 11, 2009 6:46 AM
tamPAx @377
"No, no I'm not. I need merely point out that it is."
I see, so if you think something is true, then your belief should be sufficient for those of us who do not share your belief. I think we've seen that kind of reasoning before.
Posted by: jagannath | August 11, 2009 6:41 PM
There was some other text, which was irrelevant.
Bugger me sideways! No wonder christians are able to use bible as a pillow and mallet at the same time. That other text is irrelevant so lets just read what produces the wanted end result.
has peculiar opinions and is presenting them with a way that makes people annoyed. It would be stupid to call him with profane names like wanker as it is impolite.
Or just ignore the some other text as it is irrelevant.
Posted by: joseph madre | August 11, 2009 8:43 PM
For those of you from Oz who were upset with my rather misguided humor.. I have been to your beautiful land and found Australians quite sarcastic and blessed with dry humor - Ken Ham included. An Australian tour guide even convinced my kids to put vegemite on their faces - telling them it was "super bug repellant." No disrespect intended to you or your sweet country. I know that many Americans don't often understand some Australian humor. I've Australians stay in my home (in the USA) and I'm going down under soon. Just a drongo moment for me.
I hope you checked out one of the websites..... people often look at the same evidence and interpret it differently.
Cheers mate!
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 11, 2009 8:56 PM
Smidgey's Smackdown commences:
No, my point was that the group said they wouldn't do anything to offend them.
Not according to you perhaps, but according to them, and so you're mistaken.
You are lying. Or perhaps I should say you are merely being disingenuous. Because you are saying something you know isn't entirely true as if it were entirely true. A shirt saying "Atheists Exist" would probably have not been offensive, and further I would have applauded the lad for trying if he'd been told to remove it, and joined you all in your juvenile scoffing at the big bad gestapo that pointed out he was being rude. He didn't. It said "NO GOD", and you don't have to admit or believe or even understand why it is more offensive to say that then to say "Atheists Exist" on a shirt. Because you were wrong to begin with; all you have to do is stop lying.
Honorable people do not try to weasel out of their promises. Are you trying to prove that atheists are by nature not honorable people?
Well, sorry, that's neither here nor there. Which is to say you are still missing the point, and have to go do some intellectual investigation into ethics, because your emotional desire to "be good" is apparently not sufficient to enable you to make ethically correct determinations about such things. This, I fear, is problematic for atheists in general, and since I am and atheist, I urge you to not being a fucking ass. Thank you for your time. I hope it helps.
Edwin Kagen, you rock. Well said.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 11, 2009 9:03 PM
To Bernard Plum, the drubbing commences:
Which is why the rest of the text was irrelevant. In context, the shirt said "NO GOD".
Which is why I called him, rightly, an immature git, and various and sundry permutations thereof. Because somehow, he "didn't realize" (see, I'm not saying he's a dishonest ass, I'm just saying he might be) that a t-shirt that said "NO GOD" on it in big bright letters, would somehow not be offensive to a bunch of creationist. Oh, by the way, this same slogan raised international outrage. And everybody here knows it.
So why the fuck are you trying to defend this fool, again? Explain that to me, would you? 'Cuz I got time, believe me.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 11, 2009 9:11 PM
To Greg, because I might as well finish this up:
Beliefs are irrelevant when discussing what is true. Your kind of reasoning apparently changes in order to defend your friends, regardless of the circumstance. Is that correct?
The shirt was offensive to them. We know this because they got offended. I knew this shirt would have offended them in advance. Any other thinking person would have as well, because
A) Regardless of the rest of the text, the shirt displayed the words "NO GOD" recognizable from a half-dozen meters away.
B) This same slogan caused international outrage when it was posted on buses by atheist groups.
If you're going to try to claim that it is only my belief that this is offensive to them, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to turn in your Pharyngula-issued Honest Atheist card.
What's that? You don't have a Pharyngula-issued Honest Atheist card? Well, then, that explains it, doesn't it?
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 11, 2009 9:13 PM
Jaganath is up to bat:
You know that made no sense, right?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 9:22 PM
Shorter tmaxPA: Concern troll is concerned.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 9:29 PM
tmaxPA, your concern has been noted and rejected. That's what you get for being an accommodationist wuss. Nobody is agreeing with you. Time to change your attitude.
Posted by: MTran | August 11, 2009 9:30 PM
...somehow, he "didn't realize" (see, I'm not saying he's a dishonest ass, I'm just saying he might be) that a t-shirt that said "NO GOD" on it in big bright letters, would somehow not be offensive to a bunch of creationist. Oh, by the way, this same slogan raised international outrage. And everybody here knows it."
So what you are saying is that Christians are just as nutso as the Islamic nut jobs who scream offense at any expression of religious opinion they don't agree with.
Seems to be true, doesn't it? Christians behaving as dementedly as any of the Islamic believers they revile, responding irrationally to imagined insults. I suppose that's not such a surprise.
Thank FSM that the establishment clause provides a thin protection from these loons who could otherwise dictate all US government policy.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 11, 2009 9:32 PM
Backing up, now, to this fascinating bit from Reynold (love your work, btw):
I'm sorry, you are mistaken. The kid wore a purposefully provocative t-shirt. It is silly to deny it. It wasn't accidentally provocative, or even casually provocative.Your point? Once again, I'm sorry if you didn't know this going in, but I thought the letter they sent to PZ and which he published on his blog was pretty clear that this was exactly what they were going to do. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're just dense. Who can say? Perhaps the lengthy comments PZ made about not wearing provocative t-shirts might be a clue...
In this case, apparently so. Wasn't hard to call in advance, either, and that's where your rather stupid case which I can't believe anyone is still pursuing falls apart.Indeed; we are all merely human, whether we are arrogant or not. So why do we all turn out arrogant?
No, just keep your promises, and stop being a drama queen.
Nobody forced anybody to go on any field trip, you know.
This isn't a civil rights battle. It's an intellectual debate. You can't demand that you must win; you can only hope that you will.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 9:32 PM
tmaxPAIN:
Okay, yes - whatever. You're right, dear. I'll concede your point... It's all my fault. (will that get you to shut up?)
Posted by: echidna | August 11, 2009 10:00 PM
I am a little confused.
I would have thought, that private property or not, the creation museum is open to the paying public, and therefore is not permitted to discriminate on the grounds of race, gender or religion. If this is true, it would seem to have been illegal to eject someone for displaying an atheistic message on a t-shirt, which would explain the song and dance by Mark about Derek being disruptive.
The "museum" is not a church, and does not have the right to discriminate on religious grounds.
Or have I misunderstood something?
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 11, 2009 11:59 PM
Sorry, no, that wasn't my point at all. ;-)
Posted by: Reynold | August 12, 2009 12:54 AM
tmaxPA:
I'm sorry, you are mistaken. The kid wore a purposefully provocative t-shirt. It is silly to deny it. It wasn't accidentally provocative, or even casually provocative.
Like hell. All the shirt said was that there was "probably" no god. Did you not read where I had asked you if you'd consider a xian-themed shirt to be provacative in a real museum? If you had, maybe you'd get my (and the other's point).
All the shirt did was say that the kid "probably" didn't think that their god existed. That's it. So what? How in hell is that "provacative"?
Again, would a real museum consider a young-earth creationist shirt, or a xian-themed shirt to be "provacative"? I think you know what the answer would be, but you for some reason, agree with the AIG people that a shirt that says that there is "probably" no god is provacative? Why?
Read the bloody posts on the blogs that talk about the trip, howsabout? Even when people did nothing but talk quietly they were treated with suspicion.
Your point?
My point, and Myer's point is that those people do not tolerate any form of dissension. Even just talking quietly was enough to set them off. For fuck's sake: What kind of "museum" doesn't allow people to fucking talk???
Once again, I'm sorry if you didn't know this going in, but I thought the letter they sent to PZ and which he published on his blog was pretty clear that this was exactly what they were going to do. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're just dense. Who can say? Perhaps the lengthy comments PZ made about not wearing provocative t-shirts might be a clue...
Perhaps the comments by PZ where he defended that kid who got tossed would give you a clue. Apparently you're the one who's "dense".
You want provacative? Maybe if the guy's shirt had insults like "maybe you're just dense" on it, then those people would have been justified in tossing him. Get the hint?
How stupid is this?? Just wearing of one shirt that contradicts their views is "purposefully offensive"?
In this case, apparently so. Wasn't hard to call in advance, either, and that's where your rather stupid case which I can't believe anyone is still pursuing falls apart.
Odd that "my rather stupid case" which everyone but YOU is agreeing with, is standing because YOU are the only person here who doesn't seem to understand that the kid did nothing wrong. All he did was wear a shirt that contradicted the "museum's" views.
That's it. Even Mark Looy, one of the AIG guys said that was it.
As we're trying to get it through your thick skull, just us being "atheists" is enough to offend those people.
Read some history. That is NOT how any civil rights victories were ever won!
This isn't a civil rights battle. It's an intellectual debate. You can't demand that you must win; you can only hope that you will.
This is not an "intellectual debate" with those people. It's a battle of worldviews. To them, we are the "enemy". Take a look at some of their cartoons I posted links to prevously. They are out to demonize us in the eyes of the public, just as was done to every other minority group in the past.
As for being "drama queens"? Tell that to the AIG people who wig out over someone daring to say that their god "probably" doesn't exist.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 12, 2009 6:35 AM
I'm about as bored of repeating myself, as I am of reading your repeated answer, which appears to be that the t-shirt caused massive offense - it didn't, but you wouldn't know that, because you're apparently too arrogant to actually concern yourself with the facts of the matter. He was told that the t-shirt was offensive, and asked to invert it (which he willingly did, before returning to ask why it was deemed offensive), but there was no grand incident, no fainting, no real confrontation.
This would seem to be a fairly mild description of an outrageous profanity. Apparently, you have been much more offended by this t-shirt than anybody present.
It is clearly explained in the account by Mark Looy that the worst disrputive behaviour, and the behaviour about which the Virginian family complained was nothing to do with the t-shirt, but was to do with the mocking of an exhibit by a group of people.
If you can't be bothered to familiarise yourself with the accounts of what actually happened, then you probably ought not form such intransigent opnions on it.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | August 12, 2009 6:43 AM
Many accomodation proponents really seem to have deep contempt for the religious, much more so than militant atheists.
tmaxPA demonstrates this perfectly: the premise of his argument is that "teh creashunists" can't and won't be reasoned with and will throw a shit-fit in response to dissent with the predictability of the sun rising tomorrow. I'm pretty sure that this opinion is more on the offensive side than a "no god" T-shirt.
Non-accomodationist: we think they're wrong, so let's just tell them that they're wrong!
Accomodationist: they're insane and can't be reasoned with! Don't go telling them they're wrong, just smile and nod!
Posted by: jagannath | August 12, 2009 8:10 AM
Dooh!
Posted by: Smidgy | August 12, 2009 12:14 PM
tmaxPA #394:
Firsty, you're playing semantics. Your point was that they shouldn't have done anything to offend them, because you claim they said they wouldn't do anything to offend them.
Secondly, you obviously missed where I pointed out that they didn't actually say that.
Thirdly, you also somehow, amazingly, missed the point that in order to 'not do anything to offend them', they would have to cease to exist, despite the fact I made that point several times throughout the entire length of the very post you're quoting.
Sorry, you're going to have to explain that one. I find dragons fantastic and brilliant creatures, in every way. Can you please explain how I am treating dragons with 'abuse, irreverence or contempt' by simply recognising the fact they do not actually exist?
No, sorry, I don't know that what I said 'isn't entirely true'. When you have to resort to simply calling all those who disagree with you liars without actually providing any evidence of this, that's generally a sign you're losing the argument.
Nice way of trying to sidestep the question of why it would not have been offensive, yet Derek's shirt was. Pity it failed.
I'll repeat - when you have to resort to simply calling all those who disagree with you liars without actually providing any evidence of this, that's generally a sign you're losing the argument.
Firstly, the 'promise' you claim was made, was, in fact, not made.
Secondly, to reapeat the other point that I also made in the very section you've quoted, what you're advocating is that atheists pop out of existence.
It's amazing - I actually made those two points in the very section you quoted, yet you still managed to miss them. Are you capable of reading and understanding English? I mean, if English is not your native language, that's understandable, but, if you're trying to hold a debate in English, it's generally not wise to do so if that's the case.
Sorry, isn't that EXACTLY the point? You were saying that Derek and/or the rest of the group should have seen that the shirt was 'offensive'. Well, I don't, and, as far as I can see, no-one there did, and I have still to see a satisfactory explanation of how it is 'offensive', only, basically, yourself and Mark Looy asserting that it is.
I also note that you utterly failed to address my other points, whilst still banging on about how the only text that is relevant is the 'NO GOD' part, so I'll repeat what I said:
I think the second part there is particularly relevant given that you seemingly think that ANY shirt with the phrase 'no god' on it is 'offensive'.
In short, tmaxPA, you seem to have lost the argument. You can only 'address' the points made by pretending they simply weren't made, asserting that the people who disagree with you are 'liars' and directing insults to Derek, apparantly because he had the audacity to make it known he was an atheist.
Posted by: fred johnson | August 12, 2009 12:19 PM
I call a spade a spade and I call a creationist a miserable spineless ignorant piece of human garbage willing to subvert science in the name of their hideous faith.
If it was not for the efforts of science and development despite their religion I' sure many of those same people would be happily burning non believers alive....
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 12, 2009 5:01 PM
I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Declare victory and retire, if you wish; it is obvious the issue is academic at this point. I never claimed this was any calamity, but the fact is this young person showed shamefully poor judgement, and those around him suffered from a lapse of will, if not a failure of morals.
No, I was saying that Derek and everyone else DID know that the shirt WAS OFFENSIVE to the HOSTS. It doesn't matter if they (Derek and friends) thought it was offensive, or if you do. There is clear and convincing empirical evidence available to all parties before the fact that THIS specific text would be offensive. Certainly this doesn't become less so when just the two words "NO GOD" are made prominent enough to be read from the next room.
Please, stop being disingenuous in trying to defend this JUST because I said something that annoyed you and this became a battle of wills for you. I'm not trying to make a fuss; I was right when I first said it and I'm right now, but I really don't care if everyone moves along and forgets it.
Wouldn't be so horrible if I could get one fricken yahoo from around here to admit that the boy acted daft and, in fact, should apologize TO US (well, PZ and the SSA, I include myself only rhetorically) for wearing a t-shirt that was purposefully offensive. But I can understand why that's not going to happen, though I will continue to maintain that it should (have).
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 12, 2009 5:21 PM
Also, to Mr. Bummer:
Let me save you some effort. Stop making things up, and you won't have to keep repeating them. My claim does not "appear" to be as you stated, nor is it. This is a straw man you have constructed. This is why you're not making any progress in learning here.
The little "gotcha" details about my rhetoric you're bringing up might all be perfectly valid (they're not, not even close) and STILL the fundamental point would remain. THIS SPECIFIC TEXT proved "provocative" enough to be removed from the side of a bus. That is in fact WHY it was printed on a t-shirt. And the fact that the words NO GOD were made 500% larger than the rest simply eviscerates these pretend claims of innocence you're trying to peddle.
SHOULD they be offended by the shirt? Fuck no. SHOULD they demand that nobody where a shirt that offends them? Fuck no. WAS there even any actual offense, (no) or was this just an overly-paranoid (that is, typically religionist) pre-emptive attempt to prevent offense (yes)?
These aren't points I'm debating, they have nothing to do with the issue. The issue is a kid did what kids often typically try to do in these situations: try to see how much they can get away with, and end up doing not much harm by getting caught. And, yes, that harm is always way more than they would have done had they not got caught. I was young once, I'm still immature to this very day, so I know how this works.
And I know that the difference between a responsible youth and an irresponsible one is not whether they do this, but how they respond when things start getting more complicated than they first imagined.
Posted by: Smidgy | August 12, 2009 10:18 PM
tmaxPA #412:
Thank you. You've just utterly destroyed your argument. The entire argument you were making until now was 'Derek and/or the rest of the group should have known the shirt was offensive, so he shouldn't have worn it, or the rest of the group should have made him take it off'. Here, you've just admitted the shirt was not actually offensive.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 12, 2009 11:45 PM
No, only the straw man you created in place of my argument, which remains as it has always been: factually certain. He wore the shirt on purpose because he knew it would be provocative, after the group affirmed that they would not wear provocative clothing. He therefore acting unethically.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 11:55 PM
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 13, 2009 7:04 AM
If I've made a straw man, then I've made it out of that man-shape pile of straw you left lying around. You have made a mountain out of a t-shirt-shaped molehill, when it was actually a rather trivial detail of the account. I think you need to reread your own posts in the round, to perhaps see why I might view your claims as I do (as a number of others do).
It was you that maintained that the t-shirt was offensive and profane, which might be trivial true, but doesn't constitute anything more than a minor part of the original incident.
And he responded well, even if (to entertain your opinion for a second) he made an error of judgement in wearing the t-shirt in the first place.
This is why your rather overstated criticism of the guy has fallen on deaf ears. Even if we accept that he did something merely provocative, then the point that PZ made initially still stands - that one person was singled out from a group of many behaving in a similar manner, and that the person had commited no obvious act to warrent it. Instead, he seems to have acted in good character throughout, or at least as well as those others who are praised for their good behaviour by Mark Looy. I would suggest that you reread PZ's post, and Mark Looy's account, if you want to offer any serious criticism of the supposed transgressor.
Posted by: Doctor Siegfried | August 13, 2009 7:59 AM
Janine, OMnivore @389,
Yes, Janine, that is basically a correct description of the potential effect of religion in laymen’s terms.
Fortunately, the patient appears to be recovering beyond expectation.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 1:18 PM
SC@415; Re: evidence
I've been providing the evidence all along. That specific phrase caused a controversy because it caused offense to weak-minded morons when plastered on the side of a bus. That is in fact the entire reason there is now a t-shirt with that same slogan. In addition, the layout of the text on the shirt was done to purposefully emphasize the two most potentially provocative words in the sentence.
Please, people, stop being as defensive and purposefully pig-headed as the creotards are, and just admit the truth.
Bernard:
Quite the contrary. I have not made a big deal of this at all. I was admittedly quite emotional at first, because I felt let down, but if you think leaving comments on a blog is 'making a mountain' out of something... I haven't been bringing this up anywhere else, I've only ever commented on it on this thread, and all I have done is make my central (and certain) point consistently and calmly. I'm frankly aghast that anyone is still here trying to disagree with my conclusion, which is obvious and true in a way that, I will admit, very few arguments on the Internet ever are.
I'm well aware of why you viewed my claims incorrectly. I'll even take partial responsibility for that. The first time. Now it is obvious you are just miffed because I have the gall to pass judgment on the boy's ethics, and you don't want to agree with it. Still, you've given no tiny shred of a reason to doubt it.
For example:
It was they that maintained that, when they asked him to remove the shirt. Again, incontrovertible and undeniable evidence. You'd like to substitute your judgment for theirs, but your judgment, in this particular aspect, is not relevant. Not that it could be considered honest, anyway, if you are merely denying that it was obvious and certain that the shirt would be considered provocative, since that was the point of the shirt, as well as the slogan on it.
I've seen no admission of remorse, so I'm afraid you are, again, mistaken. If he made an error in judgement in wearing the shirt, it was a purposeful one, which is not an error so much as a failure. Which is why I didn't merely castigate him, but also placed appropriate blame on everyone else in the group, including the inestimable PZ Myers, whom I have a huge amount of respect for. All the more discouraging that he showed no more wisdom than a college student in this matter.
Other than the lapse in character which caused the incident, I would almost agree with you.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 1:28 PM
Evidence of his motives? No, you haven't.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 1:34 PM
SC, you'll have to give up and go away now. Your position has become both logically unassailable and preposterous; worthy of a religionist in that respect. The evidence of his motives was his actions; you're claiming he picked that shirt randomly?
Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 1:51 PM
This relentless hectoring of your interlocutors is making you look rather unstable.
That's ridiculous.
No. In fact, I'm not making any claims about his motives, or lack thereof. I'm saying that in the videos and pictures I've seen, people were wearing all sorts of atheist and "Darwinist" regalia, much of which I would expect fundamentalists to have a problem with (these are the sort of people who were horribly offended by a billboard that said "Don't believe in God? You're not alone").
You could argue with some justification that he should have expected the shirt would offend them if he didn't (though he is a young guy), but you can't infer from the fact that they were offended by it that his intent was to provoke. It could be that he didn't think much about it, it was the only atheist-identifying garment he had to wear, he was naive,..., or that he was deliberately trying to be provocative. You simply don't know.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 13, 2009 1:57 PM
I see tmaxPA is still concerned and still full of shit. Yawn, he should have given it up days ago.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 2:07 PM
Most people do bow to bullying and pressure, eventually, Nerd. You do have a point. Me, I'm still looking for even one reason to change my mind. A lot like PZ when facing creationists, I imagine. I suppose their attitude would be the same as yours.
Posted by: Smidgy | August 13, 2009 4:25 PM
tmaxPA #414:
Sorry, I'll refer you to your post at #377:
Not only were you saying that it was 'offensive', you were saying it was somehow more offensive that a shirt that said 'Atheist', even though both shirts served exactly the same purpose (and you still haven't explained exactly how or why that is, only repeatedly sidestepped that point).
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 6:59 PM
Last first:
No, THEY were saying it was offensive, when they asked him to remove it. You'd have to ask them about 'Atheist', I never said anything about such a thing, when YOU (not they, and again I must point out your ideas about what was or wasn't or should or shouldn't have been offensive are pointedly beside the point.)
I merely pointed out the boy was trying to provoke, a claim that cannot be denied due to the history and nature of the shirt. This claim was further supported when, indeed, they decided it was provocative, and so you're simply trying to roll up hill when you deny it. Or when you try to make an issue out of the difference between 'offensive' and 'provocative', or any other rhetorical argument that purposefully misses the point. Seriously; you lost the argument before you started.
I did not make a mountain out of this molehill; those who are arguing with me are. I simply pointed out that there was, in fact, a molehill. No big deal; a simple molehill. I didn't truly think it would be notably controversial when I pointed it out. But somehow, a few people felt it was so important to deny the very existence of this molehill (the fact the group agreed not to wear provocative clothing, and this clearly qualified, and further it would have qualified even if they hadn't forced him to get rid of it given the message and the known fact it was controversial) and thus build it up into such a mountain that they can't quite find a way to the other side.
If it is so hard for an atheist to admit it and apologize when they are wrong (he and all of you) then perhaps there's not all that much moral advantage to abandoning ancient myths and legends. Or, more probably, it simply illustrates that not all the psychological hangups that the religionists display are limited to the devout.
Because ALL of that SIDESTEPS THE POINT. I don't really know or care, at this point, what it is you think you're trying to argue. But you're not even approaching the actual point of the discussion, which I've repeated so many times it seems pointless. Yet I'll try anyway.
A) The text under discussion was removed from public display because it was considered provocative. You don't need to agree with that opinion, you merely need to admit that it is true that the text was, in fact, removed, and that was because, in fact, some religionists complained about it.
B) The student wore the shirt knowing the text was on it. He was therefore, without any possibility of contradiction, purposefully wearing a provocative shirt.
C) Communications occurred here, and I presume amongst the student group involved, concerning their intent not to wear provocative shirts.
Thus, there was an ethical lapse. Particularly on the part of the student, but also, to a lesser extent, everyone in the group who saw the shirt, especially the leaders who, aware they'd stated their intent not to wear provocative shirts, should have made an effort to check for any borderline cases.
No big deal, seriously. An incredibly trivial thing. I see no need to castigate or punish or even shame anyone involved, and I'd be more than happy to forget it entirely. But I will sit here until PZ himself closes this thread if I have to, because I refuse to deny that it is true.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 7:32 PM
And now to SC; since he won't go away, I will respond.
Go cry to your mama; maybe she'll care.
Not at all; actions are the only evidence for motives. You're confusing a motive with a justification or an excuse, I think.
OK, well, I'm glad you kept at it then, because you have at least now said something that approaches having a point. I suppose the guy talking about the "Atheist" shirt thinks he also had the same point. These are in fact the same sort of people to get offended at that billboard. Just like they got offended at the bus. Would you swiftly deny any responsibility on the students part if he did, in fact, wear the 'Don't believe...' message on a shirt?
There was no guessing necessary in this case, just as there wouldn't have been had the text you cite been used.
You'd have a point, if it weren't for the aformentioned facts upon which my argument is based, namely that A) the text was empirically known to be not just of the type, but THE EXACT TEXT which caused previous offense, further B) the words "NO GOD" were the only visible part of the statement from more than a few feet away.
So, yea, I guess I see now why you guys got confused. No harm done; you can admit your mistake and move on.
It doesn't matter; they are all ethical lapses, though not all of identical severity, I'll admit. They are also all preposterous, I'll point out, requiring dutiful stupidity on your part to believe they might have actually been the case.
Posted by: Smidgy | August 13, 2009 8:03 PM
tmaxPA #425:
Make up your mind, did it cause offense or didn't it? Up until post #414, you seemed to be pretty sure it did cause offense, and was therefore 'offensive'. In #414, you clearly said the shirt did not cause offense. You are now reverting to saying that it did.
If even you are not sure of the thing your entire argument is based upon, it's clear to say your argument is flawed.
Fine, let's forget the numerous times you argued that the shirt was 'offensive', such as in post #377, and replace 'offensive' with 'provocative'. Can you explain how a shirt with 'Atheist' on it, which tells people this is a person who is an atheist, and therefore he believes there is probably no god, is more 'provocative' than a shirt that says 'there is probably no god', which tells people this person thinks that, and is therefore an atheist?
No, I didn't. Both Derek then and myself now simply asked what, precisely, is 'offensive' about the shirt. So far, I haven't actually seen an answer. If you're asking perfectly logical and coherent questions which aren't answered, that's generally a sign you're NOT losing the argument.
Or perhaps atheists are less willing to say they are wrong when the person saying they are hasn't actually backed up their position with an argument that actually makes sense.
Ah, right, so when you say something, if I ask you to explain it and/or prove it, that's 'sidestepping the point'. Gotcha.
Quite simple - I'm arguing that you're completely wrong. Quite successfully, from the looks of it.
Actually, no, it was 'removed from public display' because the 'public display' was, in many cases, on buses, so the bus companies removed them because they thought it might offend. In many cases, the bus companies actually found out that only a fairly small minority were actually offended by them (whereas quite a few disagreed with the message, but weren't offended), so put them back up.
Sorry, it's not 'without possibility of contradiction' because this has been contradicted.
Yes, 'provocative' as in something like nuns masturbating with Bibles, not a shirt that basically says 'I'm an atheist'.
Posted by: Smidgy | August 13, 2009 8:09 PM
Sorry, that should say '...is less provocative...'
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 13, 2009 8:20 PM
I merely pointed out the boy was trying to provoke
bullshit. If I wanted to wear a tshirt to provoke you personally, I would wear one that says: "Fuck you AND your mother, 'yournamehere'" It's not rational to think a tshirt that says something probably doesn't exist is designed to be personally offensive.
However, this is what idiots say when someone is trying to get them to think; that the person carrying the message making them think is offending them.
Ever wonder why the religious get defensive when made to think about why they believe what they believe, or when it is pointed out to them that there are perfectly happy, functioning people who are atheists?
House
of
Cards
that's right.
the religious worldview is nothing but a flimsy house of cards, so fragile the slightest breeze will send it tumbling down.
Which is why it has to be radically defended from any disturbance, and why you find people getting irrationally defensive about things like t-shirts and bumper stickers.
When the religious worldview does tumble, as happens from time to time (many representatives here), either one gets on with their lives (usual), or they become entirely paranoid that they never had enough "faith", and so let "god" down. The latter cases act as support for the idea that religion is a psychological malady, instilled and reinforced by peers when we are first developing thinking skills as children.
As someone else pointed out around here somewhere (the "mental tick of unconsciously thinking Adam and Eve actually existed"), the crap that our heads are filled with as children follows us around even after we have rationally dismissed the actual trappings and sources of it.
If, after reading this, you still think such a tshirt is "offensive", then I would only have this to say:
It's a start.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 13, 2009 8:22 PM
And now to SC; since he won't go away
she.
and I rather think you're projecting too much.
Posted by: Smidgy | August 13, 2009 8:29 PM
tmaxPA #426:
Well, his actions were turning the shirt inside out when asked to do so, and only asking for clarification as to what was so offensive, then actually apologising to a family for 'being disruptive' in regrds to another incident that had nothing whatsoever to do with his shirt, and it seems clear he didn't actually do anything wrong in that incident. can you please explain how that constitutes evidence that he was trying to provoke anyone?
Yes. The reason being that it isn't offensive or provocative except to the fundamentalists, and, if you're going to apply those standards, as I have already pointed out, atheists merely existing is 'offensive' and 'provocative' to some, so Derek, and the rest of the group, should have popped out of existence, or, at the very least, not bothered going. This is another thing you haven't addressed.
I've already addressed A, so I'll address B by asking a question I have already asked twice, but you have yet to answer. If the shirt had said 'There is NO GOD but me', would the shirt still be 'provocative' or 'offensive'?
Sorry, no, only the last one, 'deliberately trying to be provocative' was an 'ethical lapse'. The rest are all either not being aware of certain facts and/or being unable to think like someone you're not.
Firstly, you're resorting to insults rather than arguments again.
Secondly, I notice you say they're all 'preposterous' - including your preferred one, 'deliberately being disruptive'. Freudian slip?
Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 8:52 PM
I'm female, and I've addressed I believe a total of two comments to you on this thread.
Huh? It was a simple observation.
No, people's descibing their motives is evidence for motives, which you can try to square with their actions. Inferring motives based only on actions, especially in a situation in which you don't know the level of knowledge of the person in question or the amount of thought (s)he dedicated to the matter, is completely unwise. And he doesn't need an excuse.
My point was made in my question to you: you don't have sufficient evidence to make the case you're trying to make about his motives.
Responsibility for what? Are you suggesting that would necessarily be unethical or deliberately provocative? How are you distinguishing these from all of the other atheist and evolution-themed t-shirts, buttons, etc.?
[Others have responded to the next part of your response.]
The hell they are. Even if he had been wearing it deliberately to be provocative, it wouldn't have been unethical. You could argue for counterproductive (though I'd disagree), but unethical? No.
I'll leave it to other readers to determine whether they consider those possibilities preposterous.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 8:53 PM
All right, Smidgey. We'll do this the hard way. ;-)
You are playing rhetorical games. Are you denying they asked him to remove the shirt? Whether you want to label 'offense' when they did that, or the hypothetical reaction of people if they hadn't, is the argument of a sophist who is dearly trying to miss the point.
Of course I can, or at least I imagine I can, both because I was raised Catholic and because I have an exceedingly agile mind. But I won't bother explaining it to you because it doesn't matter. You are arguing about the nature, purpose, or motive of their reaction, not the fact of its existence, and that is all my argument rests on.
That is precisely why you lost the argument before you started; you're arguing something else. You want me to explain to you why religionists are offended by that particular statement (or, perhaps, the more succinct "NO GOD" which is all that probably mattered). That isn't the argument you joined, just so you know. Now, if I explain that to you, and you find it insufficient (even though I can assure you it is not in their case, and that is what matters) does that end the argument for you? If so I will attempt to do so, but only if you let me know you agree.
Wrong about what? That they asked him to remove the shirt, or that it was predictable that they would ask him to remove the shirt? Please explain what it is you think I am "completely wrong" about.
Okay, let me just get something straight. You do realize that 'provocative' is not a physical quantity of something that can be objectively measured, right? And that the "small minority" that the bus companies found WERE offended is the target audience of the Creation "Museum"?
This is what I meant by "trying to roll up hill".
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 8:59 PM
A slightly different angle from Ichthyic:
Agreed. I don't think creationists are rational, either. Nevertheless, we knew in advance that they were going to be the ones doing the judging about what would be considered offensive.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 9:09 PM
One last bit for now, because it is important:
Not unethical in and of themselves, no. Unethical in this particular circumstance because the group had agreed they would not wear clothing meant to provoke.
If he'd just been some dude on his own and wanted to go in and "Teh Man" hassled him, that's entirely different. But he went as part of a group, and the group had had discussions and made announcements about not wearing provocative t-shirts.
And, ya know, just not thinking hard enough about what you're doing and 'oops' you end up accidentally offending is not a huge ethical lapse. But it is one, particularly when OTHER people are relying on you to behave in an exemplary fashion.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 13, 2009 9:18 PM
Nevertheless, we knew in advance that they were going to be the ones doing the judging about what would be considered offensive.
oh?
seems to me PZ should know creationists as well as anyone here, and he made a pretty clear statement about what he thought, based on the communications with the staff, patrons would find "offensive" and thus shouldn't be worn.
funny, but that shirt wasn't on the list from either the staff or was it thought by PZ (who I'm sure you personally would say knows offensive) to be offensive.
ONE patron found it "offensive" and complained.
Can we categorically define something as offensive if one person, for agreed irrational reasons, finds it so?
Don't know what world you live in, but in mine, that simply doesn't work.
Noone has the right to NOT be offended. It simply wouldn't make sense.
the issue here is was the shirt, by it's design, intended to be offensive?
not fucking hardly - that would be, as pointed out above, entirely counterproductive to the message being sent by the ones who produced the slogan to begin with.
I pointed out what would be considered clearly a personally offensive statement to just about anyone.
do you feel the intent of the statment I wrote, and that of what was written on the shirt, are even remotely similar?
ever heard the term: false equivalence?
Posted by: Smidgy | August 13, 2009 9:20 PM
tmaxPA #433:
I was point out your argument is inconsistent and you are contradicting yourself. And you talk about ME missing the point?
You quite clearly stated that the 'Atheist' shirt was less offensive (then changed your argument to that Derek's shirt was 'provocative', not offensive). I am asking you to explain that.
Yes, because I can find nothing 'offensive', so I am asking you to prove to me the shirt is 'offensive' by explaining what, precisely, is 'offensive', as you hold that it is. So far, you, Mark Looy, and, indeed, the security guard who asked Derek to turn the shirt insode out have utterly failed to do that.
Well, if it is clearly insufficient to offend most Christians (and, by the way, you are not the only one raised as a Christian - I was too), then we get back to the case of applying the standards of not doing doing anything that would offend anyone at all, which, as I have already pointed out numerous times, but you've repeatedly failed to address, means that Derek and the rest of the group should have popped out of existence.
That he should have known the shirt was 'offensive', so shouldn't have worn it.
And you do realize that I have, effectively, already addressed this point in the parts of the post which you didn't bother quoting or addressing?
Posted by: Smidgy | August 13, 2009 9:27 PM
Ichthyic #436:
Actually, txmaxPA's argument makes even less sense when you realize that this is, in fact, wrong. NOBODY actually complained about it. The security guard simply decided to tell Derek to turn the shirt inside out completely off his own back. The only complaint levelled at Derek was a family somehow had their trip 'ruined' by overhearing Derek state he wouldn't spend any money in the bookshop.
Posted by: Smidgy | August 13, 2009 9:29 PM
Actually, that brings up a very good point - tmaxPA, does this mean that Derek was being 'offensive' or 'provocative' when he said he wasn't spending any more money in the bookshop?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 13, 2009 9:32 PM
The only complaint levelled at Derek was a family somehow had their trip 'ruined' by overhearing Derek state he wouldn't spend any money in the bookshop.
ah, I had those two incidents confused, then.
thanks.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 9:35 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/the_creation_museum_has_given.php
***
No, they hadn't. They had reason to expect that almost any evolutionary or atheist items would potentially be provocative. And "provoke" can mean provoke thought as well as anger.
That isn't at all necessarily the case, especially when you're dealing with irrational people who can be offended by almost anything that doesn't fit with their irrational beliefs.
You haven't shown that he didn't from any perspective other than that of a few creationists.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 9:40 PM
Okay, it is clearly still an active discussion, so I'll resort to the techniques that worked so well for me all those years on Usenet.
Ic got there first:
And yet he didn't either see the shirt or recognize it as offensive. This is not much of a dilemma, as I'm sure PZ was very active. I certainly don't actually fault him for not personally reviewing every persons wardrobe. Unfortunately, that doesn't really change the fact that he shares some of the ethical blame in allowing this to happen, simply because he was a leader of the group. Spiderman rule.
It duplicated text from a bus thing that I only heard about from PZ's blog. Funny fail.
That's actually one more than I knew about. I'd say my proof is even more secure, but since it is proof, it was always secure.
Not in all contexts, no, but in this one, yes. Deal with it.
You are correct. Nevertheless, assurances were made that provocative tshirts would not be worn, and this one was provocative, as was worn, and I simply don't know why you're still discussing the matter, let alone trying to insult me over it.
Not entirely.
Very much so.
Actually, I don't know what you're refering to, as the barrage of babble has exceeded my ability to deal with it all. Back in the newsreader days, I'd keep up with a dozen threads like this at once, but since we're now all here on the web, the best I can do is stick to my point and re-argue it here and there as I find time.
If you're trying to argue that the statement itself should not be offensive, I'd agree. If you're trying to argue it wasn't, then you are insane. Are we done yet?
Posted by: Rorschach | August 13, 2009 9:41 PM
I'm having problems following the line of thought that arrives at the conclusion that wearing the "there is no god" t-shirt is somehow intrinsically unethical or offensive, or a clear violation of the rules that PZ gave out before the trip.
It seems that, given noone actually complained about it and a guard decided on his own that it was offensive, that tmax's argument doesnt hold up, and that these guys were just desperate to throw someone out and create any kind of incident, however ludicruos the occasion.
As Ichty said,noone has the right to not be offended, private property or not.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 9:49 PM
I'm still laughing at "I have an exceedingly agile mind."
What an arrogant gasbag.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 13, 2009 9:50 PM
Rorschach, it's quite simple. For people like Ham, Looy and Tampax, the existence of atheists is offensive.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 10:06 PM
And now the best for last, the newcomer; thanks for comment.
Are you still? My other responses lay this out plainly, I hope.
We knew they were desperate to find offense going in; we knew they were creationists and they knew we were atheists. Thus, my disappointment that, even after a discussion about slogan tshirts, nobody seemed to have realized (or acted on the realization, which I think still is more likely) that that particular shirt would be found 'provocative' enough by the officials to be found offensive, regardless of if any patrons did.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 10:11 PM
Both Smidgey's at once. I'm hoping SC checks back tonight; I'd like to deal with HER response (apologies) as well.
Explain what, precisely? Why a religionist finds one statement offensive and the other less so? I'm not sure I can, I'd have to know more about your background, at least, before I could even try.
I don't have to prove it is offensive; you already admitted, someone was offended. Why does it freak out religionists when you say something like, "There is probably no god, so relax and enjoy your life?" I should think that would be obvious; because it undermines their worldview in an extremely compelling way.
But we don't need to do that in order for everything I've said (and, indeed, my ethical charge against the boy) to be entirely true. Admit that, and then we can discuss their motivations, and I will be glad to play devil's advocate for a while, to show you how treacherous the human psyche can be.
Sorry if I missed your 'repeatedly pointing out' something beside the point. See, usually I don't really go line by line and respond, because like I said, even I, an unemployed bachelor, don't have that much time. But now that it's gotten cozy in here, I figured I would. Anything not blockquoted here from your previous message was read but edited simply so I'm not repeating everything you said.
Anyway, as to your point. I assume that college students, and certainly then professors, are aware of simple statistics like the fact that most Christians are not creationists, that creationists are fundamentalists, that fundamentalists are easily offended by rationality, and that creationists make up the entire target audience of the Creation "Museum".
Or reading, probably, as I've explained.My previous comments already address all your points, as far as I can tell.
Actually, txmaxPA's argument makes even less sense when you realize that this is, in fact, wrong. NOBODY actually complained about it.
Thank you for that clarification. That had been my original supposition.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 10:16 PM
Actually, I was referring to my Attention Deficit Disorder, which is what makes me unemployable. Glad you stopped in, SC.
And to "'Tis Himself" (talk about arrogance...)
Fuck you, fuck you, and oh, by the way, fuck you. Have I offended you? I think not, but I sure hope so. Fuck you.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 10:28 PM
What?
You were asked:
You answered:
How does your ADD enter into this?
What are you talking about with this "stopped in" and "I'm hoping SC checks back tonight"? I posted a comment 14 minutes before that one, and haven't said I was going anywhere.
*Not to mention "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."
Posted by: Rorschach | August 13, 2009 10:38 PM
Please tmax, so far the discussion was civil, even if you seem to be arguing along the lines of the creationists' " I just know in my heart" argument, so please keep it that way.
I dont know anything about you, but Tis was right to point out that Looy and Ham find the sheer existence of atheists offensive.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 10:45 PM
SC:
I was subtly trying to point out how rude you were, but you didn't include the context, so your response is also rude. (The important context was "agile mind".) I'll skip the next two paragraphs, hammering the same point, as well as the other thing, which speaks to the same issue.
Which leaves me with your again asking me to explain why some particular quote might or might not be more or less offensive than the one that was on the shirt. I have no more argument then that the thing that was on the shirt had already been shown to be offensive, and none of the rest have. Don't you get it?
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 10:50 PM
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 10:53 PM
Okay, sorry, Rorschach; it was someone else who called me a creationist. Compared me to Ken Ham, no less. Sorry you and lurkers got caught in the crossfire.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 11:13 PM
By the way, tmaxPA has moved from "purposefully rudely disruptive, aggressively confrontational" to "provocative."]
I've read those sentences a few times now, and I can't make sense of them. I have no idea what you're trying to say. And for an example of rudeness, see your own posts on this thread, including your attacks on this kid who isn't here to defend himself.
For the record, I was not quoting myself there.
I get that it offended some small number of people elsewhere, and that some people know this. How the hell do you know that "none of the rest have," or what different individuals' experiences are with having offended creationists? In fact, Ken Ham on his blog the other day said: "Indeed, some T-shirts were taken as offensive and inappropriate, as some of our guests shared with us." Note the plural.
Posted by: Bobber | August 13, 2009 11:27 PM
How so? I was diagnosed nearly ten years ago... and have worked pretty steadily since I was 15 (I am now 42).
Please don't use ADD as an excuse, either for not being able to work, or to explain "quickness of mind." Either mischaracterizes the work done to overcome the scattered-mindedness and compensate for the lack of focus that I and millions of others suffer with.
Just my usual inappropriate two cents.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 11:44 PM
Your loss. No worries.I gathered that from your previous sentence. You're just repeating yourself, you know.
I did not "attack" him. I didn't even say anything particularly nasty about him that wasn't true. I merely pointed out he was an immature child who thought it would be fun to flout authority even though he pretended to promise not to, and that this was, in an actual adult college student, unethical behavior.
Which leaves me again wondering why, since that is beside the point. That particular quote was. We know this empirically. What is your problem with that?
Correction: it offended religious fundamentalists on a city bus.
Correction: it was talked about on this blog.
You are really really reaching. I hope you realize that.
And which others of these were grounds for being "expelled"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 13, 2009 11:47 PM
And yet he didn't either see the shirt or recognize it as offensive.
neither did the staff, or they wouldn't have let him in. He didn't put it on after he entered, obviously.
so is the shirt offensive?
yes, or no?
frankly, you've defeated your own case that it was several times now.
are you really that bored?
meh, I think I'll go fishing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 13, 2009 11:50 PM
I merely pointed out he was an immature child who thought it would be fun to flout authority even though he pretended to promise not to, and that this was, in an actual adult college student, unethical behavior.
and we've merely pointed out just how wrong you are.
done?
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 13, 2009 11:59 PM
Yea, I'm glad things are good for you, asshole.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 12:08 AM
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 14, 2009 12:09 AM
Oh, please. The shirt was a mild statement of his beliefs. That's all.
It was equivalent to the thousands of people who stroll into real science museums wearing crosses or clerical collars or WWJD bracelets or 'jesus loves you' t-shirts. In real museums, no one would pull someone aside for that and tell them they were being disruptive.
Just another double-standard from the Christians, I guess.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 14, 2009 12:09 AM
No. I was saying that I can neither make sense of the words nor get even partially at your possible intent. Stop being so evasive. If you were making a point, then it should be easy enough to clarify.
You know virtually nothing about this guy, and you've ascribed all sorts of motives to him and called him a number of names. Anyone can search through your comments on this thread.
Dude - you're quoting yourself now. Perhaps you should take a break.
I don't feel like checking to see who the offended people were, but that's not a correction to what I said.
Again, not a correction; that's merely one of the ways some people know about it.
No, I'm really really not.
This one wasn't - not even according to the CM people. Nor was there anything there about people complaining about this particular shirt, but he does mention complaints about other shirts.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 12:11 AM
Was he asked to remove it, yes or no?
You simply have no case.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 12:13 AM
Was he asked to remove it, yes or no?
then why was he allowed to enter wearing it?
you simply have no case.
Posted by: Bobber | August 14, 2009 12:13 AM
Not without a great deal of work. And not without refusing to make excuses for myself.
Sorry that your own situation has made you so angry. Perhaps you might direct some of your issues regarding self-expression to a more productive re-examination of your own priorities - as in, taking umbrage at imagined slights rather than addressing the far more serious problems associated with the very existence of a "Creation Museum" in the first place.
As far as my being an "asshole", I will again offer a word of advice: if you're going to walk around with that large a chip on your shoulder, you would do well to develop a better sense of balance to keep it from toppling onto your arguments. It makes it really hard to see any merit in them.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 14, 2009 12:14 AM
We've heard your misplaced concern. Nobody seems to be agreeing with you. Is that your real problem? Time to put in in the sack and forget about it. Or, why can't you put it in the sack, and just let it go?Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 12:22 AM
Finally, thank you.
PZ sez:
Seriously? With "NO GOD" in huge letters?
As you have pointed out, this wasn't a real museum, and we had a discussion about tshirts. We knew this wasn't a real museum going in, and we knew they were concerned, and we knew this text had been protested. Why am I getting grief for just pointing those things out?
That's why. Because I'm calling you on this, Mr. Dr. Professor PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame. It is a double standard on YOUR part. WE're supposed to be smarter than them, dammit, and we should know how to not cross even imaginary lines, and why the hell was the same text that got written about on this blog as being offensive to creotards on a shirt some asshole wore on your field trip?
All I want at this point is someone to be honest enough to admit they knew it would be a problem going in, I'm not asking for any kind of apology even. I can't be the only atheist concerned about the public ethics of other atheists, can I? You do realize it really isn't irrational to be concerned about that, even if you are religious? If it weren't for the fact that there was agreement, or at least direction, that we weren't trying to be confrontational, I wouldn't even have commented on this incident.
But yea, seriously, PZ, if atheists are going to overcome the bigotry of religionists, we do need to be mindful of our promises and our ethics. Can you say that out loud, at least? Even if you think I'm wrong about this case, can you at least see that there's a point to be made here?
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 12:28 AM
No, just you, because you're an asshole, who now wants to take an off-hand comment and flog me with it. Go away.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 12:38 AM
Always good to see an atheist with an open mind.
What are you talking about? Everyone else has moved on; nobody still here wants to agree with me. As far as I know, the rest do. I just wish they'd speak up about it.
Stop trying to bully me with arguments from... whatever 'argument from' that was. Sorry; i'ts the ADD. Guess, somehow, inexplicably and with nobody ever noticing, it affects some people more than others.
Separately:
Your claim contradicts reality.
It doesn't matter. Your logic is, to be blunt, pathetic. But somehow it is OK because you are defending a fellow atheist against irrationality! I'm a fellow atheist, and I find your behavior even more pathetic and offensive, if not downright childish, than his.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 14, 2009 12:47 AM
tmax @ 467,
I get your point.It's this I assume:
You think the guy wearing this particular shirt constitutes some sort of ethics violation or break of promise, and I think that view is problematic at best.
There seems to me to be ample evidence that the atheists behaved admirably, and that the fascists at the "museum" just took the first possible opportunity to expel someone.
I just think since noone apart from some guard took offense, and only after the guy was already inside, and given the nature of the statement on the shirt, that this does not constitute a breech of the rules of engagement PZ asked the goers to follow.
You disagree with this.It happens.
Posted by: Bobber | August 14, 2009 12:50 AM
I'm calling you on your arrogance (Mr. Agile Mind) and your attempt to evoke pity (unemployable), neither of which has anything to do with the point you are trying to make, and which I, who share your particular contemplative difficulties, take a certain exception to. Stop making excuses for yourself - and stop making excuses for the hypersensitivity of the "Ham"-handed security personnel.
Stop lashing out like a child. Your own imagined victimhood explains your oversensitivity to this innocuous act "committed" at Ken Ham's House of Idiocy. "Was the shirt offensive?" "Did he lie when he promised to not wear anything offensive?"
I say again: your priorities are misplaced.
As far as flogging goes, I suspect you aren't my type in that department. Certainly not without going out for coffee first.
(See? I have a sense of humor. Get one, and you might find life a little less aggravating.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 1:01 AM
No, just you, because you're an asshole, who now wants to take an off-hand comment and flog me with it. Go away.
actually he's chopping down a tree, with a herring.
A big shiny red one.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 1:01 AM
Yes, OK, can we all be civil now and put away the snark?
You are entirely correct. That view is very problematic. Unfortunately, it is also reality. The group made efforts to prevent offensive tshirts, and failed. How good the efforts were therefore becomes the crux of an ethical consideration of the incident. Turns out, the text was that which was discussed as provocative to fundamentalists on this very blog.
So why should the fact that this view is problematic deter me from recognizing it as correct?
Posted by: Bobber | August 14, 2009 1:09 AM
I guess I'd be better off telling Walton about the violence inherent in the system.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 1:13 AM
I guess I'd be better off telling Walton about the violence inherent in the system.
if he doesn't tell you first.
;)
btw, in case it wasn't clear, I was suggesting that Tmax tossed out the herring, and that you were merely chopping down the tree with it.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 1:20 AM
His tree, his herring, your dumb snarky comment. You should go away too.
Posted by: Bobber | August 14, 2009 1:21 AM
Ichthyic: It wasn't completely clear to me, but I'm kinda slow on the uptake... especially at... good non-existent god, it's past 1:20 A.M. I'm far too old to be up this late. Still, there's some good stuff on Cartoon Network to keep me entertained. You know, we Flogging Assholes love us some cartoons.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 1:30 AM
Have a nice night, then. It's only 12:30 in Minnesota. ;-)
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 1:30 AM
You should go away too.
whassamatter? Can't wish us all into the cornfield?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 1:32 AM
Cartoon Network
Have they done a new season of Venture Brothers yet?
Posted by: Bobber | August 14, 2009 1:38 AM
I haven't followed Venture Brothers long enough to know if what they're showing is new, or old. And now the 6-year old has climbed out of her bed and into mine, so until she falls asleep again, I have to keep those naughty Adult Swim programs off the television.
Hmph. 12:30. When I was a younger man, that's around when the night got STARTED... ... now, instead of beer and poker, it's Ovaltine and comfy slippers. Bah.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 1:42 AM
Wouldn't if I could; you're far too entertaining.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 14, 2009 1:52 AM
"Oh, please. The shirt was a mild statement of his beliefs. That's all."
"Seriously? With "NO GOD" in huge letters?"
Yes. Seriously.
There was other text on that shirt, you know. I wouldn't be surprised if there were Christian T-shirts with "NO GOD" in big letters, just to shock you into reading the actual Christian message (e.g., NO GOD, No Peace).
"All I want at this point is someone to be honest enough to admit they knew it would be a problem going in."
You're projecting.
"I can't be the only atheist concerned about the public ethics of other atheists, can I?"
You're the only one having a pants-wetting fit over a T-shirt.
"But yea, seriously, PZ, if atheists are going to overcome the bigotry of religionists, we do need to be mindful of our promises and our ethics."
No, what we need is to show that we won't be cowed by the prevailing cultural bias towards religion. In other words, we're here, we're queer, get used to it.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 14, 2009 2:10 AM
Sorry I'm late to this little fracas.
This is giving me flashbacks to High School Madness circa 1969-71--when, growing up behind the Orange Curtain, in the Nation State of Disneyland, home of the Birchers (and I was given the birch rod and the occasional plexiglass paddle in public school, when corporal punishment was encouraged), when all it took to be taken aside by the vice principal and expelled, was to wear blue jeans, a white t-shirt, and have slightly unruly hair that touched the ears or collar.
That is the Kodak moment Looy wanted to project to the world. That little authoritarian shit wants the world to be like it was in the 1960's, when girls in short skirts had to kneel to make sure they weren't showing too much leg above the knee, and creeps like that were there to measure it.
How did we take care of that kind of authoritarian crap back then when we were kids? We all wore our hair long, and skirts short, and either the wrong kind of jeans or even just wearing pants if we weren't male (yes, school in those days was just a bit like living under the Taliban, at least when it came to high school girls who wore pants). Then one day some idiot Vice Principal Looy lined up 200 male students and expelled all of them at once for having hair that touched their shirt collars, and the parents voted the entire school board out of office on that single issue alone.
It wasn't Derek, or that particular shirt. They were going to toss somebody out, to show us we were being disrespectful just for existing.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 2:16 AM
Yes; the entirety of which caused a ruckus in Europe, IIRC. EUROPE!
I thought the other day, back when I though people might be rational about this, whether the text "thou shalt have NO GOD before me" would have caused them to ask it be removed. I kinda doubt it. Still, it is obvious that enhancing those words was meant to be noticeable, and doing that around religionists should be so obviously offensive as to not cause the kind of controversy it has.
What huh? Admittedly, we're all projecting all the time, but, what huh? Yes, if someone had asked me, I'd have known the text would be offensive. You know why I'd know that? Because I read about how offensive it was on THIS BLOG.
Is that supposed to be an answer? If so, it is seriously disappointing. I'll count it as snark and assume you, well, you should go away.
You are supporting my argument. This wasn't supposed to be a confrontation, remember? The term "reconnaissance mission" comes to mind.
Posted by: Drosera | August 14, 2009 4:47 AM
tmaxPA,
Okay, I'll speak up. I don’t agree with you.
Do the words 'scapegoat' and 'control freak' mean anything to you?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 14, 2009 4:56 AM
Dear Brother tamPAx,
With this level of obsession over an insignificant detail, you would make a good Christian. Would you like to join my church and be my first convert on this blog?
Your friendly missionary to the atheists
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 4:58 AM
This is giving me flashbacks to High School Madness circa 1969-71--when, growing up behind the Orange Curtain, in the Nation State of Disneyland
I knew we shared a kinship somehow.
Born in Newport Beach myself; grew up in Costa Mesa. Went to "Estancia".
about ten years younger than you, I'd reckon.
couldn't wait to escape the Neocons.
had to fucking move all the way to NZ to finally accomplish it.
...or have I?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 14, 2009 5:09 AM
Nope
Posted by: SC, OM | August 14, 2009 9:28 AM
Bullshit. He was allowed in the museum wearing the t-shirt, and was not expelled for wearing it.
From Wikipedia:
*Read about this nasty little organization here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Voice_(UK)
Some extremely hateful whackjobs (and a few bishops) in the UK complained several months ago when it first appeared, and that was mentioned here (and some of us read it). The phrase went on to appear on more buses there and on buses in other cities around the world in the months that followed, without major incident, AFAIK. It has become a general atheist slogan. That's how progress is made. And if there's a lesson to be learned from reading this blog, it's that taking offense is what these people do, and the probability that they will do it probably depends more on the degree to which they feel threatened and seek to control than on the nature of the alleged cause of their indignation.
Are really so dense that you don't understand the difference between not being cowed and being confrontational? Surely you can understand the difference between going to a protest and going to a protest carrying a baseball bat?
Compare his shirt to some here:
http://www.cafepress.com/numptees050505/4973675
Do you not see a difference?
The point is that PZ, who was the one establishing the ground rules, mentioned specific types of t-shirts that would be unacceptable, and this wasn't among them. He also said the SSA would not give a ticket to anyone dressed confrontationally, and they obviously gave him a ticket. Then the museum let him in, and he walked around for some time without it being mentioned. Now PZ has responded on this thread that he sees it as a mild statement of beliefs. So the kid didn't violate any agreement according to those who formed the agreement.
If you think the agreement should have been something different that would have excluded this shirt, well, tough shit. Many people disagree with you, and no amount of smug bullying, constantly repeating your assertions without dealing with people's arguments, and calling others' reasoning "pathetic" and them stupid is likely to change that. It should be clear to you that the only thing you're convincing people of here is that you're an arrogant, controlling jerk.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 10:27 AM
Do you not understand the difference is meaningless; this very text was provocative before, and there was no reason to think it wouldn't be provocative now. It comes down to that; they didn't think. I know you guys are more than willing to twist any bit of this incident into exoneration of your side if at all possible, but none of that either justifies or explains his actions. You feel absolutely sure nobody was offended, because nobody complained. Not the same thing. You know absolutely that they were just looking for an excuse, and if this shirt hadn't been it, something else would. But you haven't even a fig-leaf to dress up this straw man with.
I am neither surprised nor disappointed that PZ is capable of making mistakes. I'm not even surprised he's a litte reluctant to admit to them, or may not even notice. But unless this particular text was approved, your assumption it had blanket approval as non-provocative is bogus.
You see, the evolutionists are supposed to be better at basic logic than the religionists. Not at finding excuses for holding themselves blameless at all times. That is supposed to be THEIR racket, not ours.
In other words, no, that does not follow that he must not have been dressed confrontationally if he got a ticket. Nor that he was not confrontational because a guard or official, not a patron, asked him to remove his shirt (I presume that not even at the Creation "Museum" can a patron order another to remove their shirt.) I could understand if you all were yelling "we didn't know". But I will not sit quietly while you go on about "we couldn't have known". That is a mis-statement, at best.
I can understand why you think that. I'm wondering why a "mild statement of beliefs" disqualifies it from being confrontational; these are religionists were talking about. Mild statements of belief are practically custom-made to incite them to fits of apoplexy. And, yea, PZ ought to own up to knowing that before hand. It is, as I said, understandable why people made the wrong call here. It is only slightly more understandable why they would refuse to admit it. We're all only human, after all. I wouldn't even mind if you or he said, "I wondered if that was borderline." But, no, you have to maintain your certainty in the face of all facts.
The agreement excluded this shirt; that doesn't mean the participants did. It replicated text known to be controversial. PZ, not having a religionist background, apparently didn't realize that repeating the text which annoyed fundamentalists before was going to annoy fundamentalists again. Rather than try to defend it, I'd prefer to see a "mild statement of mea culpa" from him and the boy both. I'm sure it will never happen but, again, that doesn't change the facts.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 14, 2009 10:40 AM
Give it a rest. You're becoming an obsessive moron.
I fully approve of that shirt. In fact, one of the things I talked about in my keynote speech to the SSA was those bus signs -- that all we have to do is state the fact of our existence and some raving lunatic somewhere will announce that they are offended. And I approve of those signs -- do more! Nothing highlights the craziness and intolerance of the other side than that they, like you, will rant against the most innocuous statements from atheists.
If I were to make a trip like this again, I'd suggest to everyone that they get that exact same t-shirt, and we'd all wear it into the "museum". I am overjoyed when loons announce that they are offended by something inoffensive.
Well, except when they become monotonic and fuss endlessly over it in one of my comment threads.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 14, 2009 12:43 PM
Ichthyic is my homeboy!
Born in Newport Beach myself; grew up in Costa Mesa. Went to "Estancia".
Born in Texas; grew up in Garden Grove. Went to "Rancho". I sure wanted to move to NZ for Weta and LotR, but at least there aren't a whole heck of a lot of Neocons up North here in the Bay area.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 14, 2009 12:49 PM
Well, thanks for responding again, PZ, and I'll stop bothering to defend my position; I realize these others have dragged it out far longer than it should have.
If you were to try to make this trip again, having said what you just posted, I doubt they'd let you back. You don't care, I don't care, they don't care.
I support the signs and the buses, too; always have. The one and only time I don't think it is appropriate to try to goad people into responding to provocative things is when you've told them you won't. I'll shut up now, PZ, but you know I'm right.
And you should also be a bit less of an ass about assuming that anyone who criticizes you is a loon.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 14, 2009 12:57 PM
PZ can take disagreement. However in your case you are a loon.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 14, 2009 1:08 PM
Pompous blowhard who can't accept others disagreeing with him.
You've acted like a fixated, imperious, hyperbolic loon throughout this thread.
Posted by: E.V. | August 14, 2009 1:22 PM
Bilbo and tmaxPA can now resume their love tryst based on their mutual obsessive hammering of the same goddamn point past any reasonable measure. The concept of agreeing to disagree is not an option for these eternally squawking love birds, it's their way or no way at all. Good news, fellas - I hear help me boab is available for a threesome.
We do everything alike
We look alike, we dress alike, we walk alike, we talk alike
And what is more
We hate each other very much
We hate our folks...
Posted by: SC, OM | August 14, 2009 1:24 PM
You weren't successful at it, anyway.
Translation: If only everyone would simply bow to my superior intellect and finely-tuned ethical sense, accept that I am right and that they are childish to deny it, apologize for their impertinence, and go away when I order them to, this would have been over long ago. Respect mah authoritah!
Posted by: Bobber | August 14, 2009 1:29 PM
I can feel the pain in my kneecaps already.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 14, 2009 1:36 PM
Just for the record, tmaxPA, I don't agree with you. There, I've spoken up. Happy now?
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 14, 2009 1:48 PM
We won't hear a rousing choir confirming for tmaxPA that, "The lurkers support me in email!" will we.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 14, 2009 1:51 PM
^^This.
'Course, he'd pretty much lost me from 'I cannot BELIEVE this. It is OUTRAGEOUS! I've never felt so betrayed, so abused and disabused at the same time...'
(/Later, the same poster was, oddly enough, the first in the thread to use the term 'drama queen'. To which I can only: 'spoing'...)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 14, 2009 1:56 PM
Me neither. You need to learn the difference between having your say, and bullying people.Posted by: E.V. | August 14, 2009 1:58 PM
Finding a graceful exit is knowing where self respect and self humiliation intersect.
(I miss that off ramp every time, dammit)
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 15, 2009 2:33 AM
You're an ass.
Posted by: Brachychiton | August 15, 2009 3:12 AM
Who was it who used to come to this blog and then tell everyone else to go away? Was is Kwok? (They all merge into one amorphous blob after a while.)
Anyway, tmaxPA has travelled far into Kwok-world.
Posted by: Drosera | August 15, 2009 5:55 AM
Hey tmaxPA,
I think you forgot to call me an ass for not agreeing with you (#486).
Posted by: Rorschach | August 15, 2009 6:09 AM
I think tmax is wrong regarding the shirt issue, but I also think he argued his point well enough, got a bit over-excited at some point and deservedly copped some flak for that, but that shouldnt deter him from posting here again, seems nice enough, and able to make an argument.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 2:02 PM
How so?
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 16, 2009 3:02 AM
I kinda figured when I caught you in the crossfire that somehow, Rorschach, you're a pretty nice guy. Which I wouldn't have expected if your handle is an Alan Moore homage, as I'd assumed.
And by the way I'm right about the shirt tissue; in his response here PZ contradicted himself thoroughly from before the field trip. Regardless, none of this would have the slightest affect on whether I post here; I'm too ADD for that. ;-)
Not that I haven't been lurking and posting here long enough to consider your, or anyone else's endorsement to be worthless. Still; "able to make an argument" is a phrase that warms my heart. Thxkbie.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 16, 2009 3:11 AM
I am neither surprised nor disappointed that PZ is capable of making mistakes.
I'm sure not surprised you assume the mistake was someone's other than your own.
you need to see a shrink, pronto.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 16, 2009 9:37 AM
tmaxPA @ #491:
I am neither surprised nor disappointed that PZ is capable of making mistakes.
tmaxPA's first post on this thread:
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 16, 2009 9:46 AM
tmaxPA, you are wrong on the shirt. Allow yourself to be wrong. If you can't ever be wrong, you have an ego problem that needs fixing.
Here's a good rule of thumb to decide between having your say and bullying. It is bullying if you can't let it go. It is having your say if post less than 10 times. On this issue, you have gone on for days.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 16, 2009 9:49 AM
He's wrong on the issue I think, and contradicted himself at times, fair to call him out on it, but I didnt fancy the posts asking him to see a shrink etc.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 17, 2009 12:19 AM
"tmaxPA, you are wrong on the shirt. Allow yourself to be wrong. If you can't ever be wrong, you have an ego problem that needs fixing."
Why am I wrong? Because the text was controversial, both on a bus and on a shirt; surprise surprise. I don't think I'm the one with the ego problem here; you follow me?
Bullying has nothing to do with this; I can't "bully" you in a comments thread on a blog. I'm not the one who can't let this go, see, because I only respond to you. I'd presumed everyone had stopped posting once I gave up; I decided to check back after the dino thing came out. But no, you have to try to demand something more. And THAT, my friend, is bullying.
I'm not saying you are bullying, mind you. I'm just saying you're trying to.
To SC; I was surprised that they weren't more serious in their vigilance. I was not surprised when they tried to defend it. I don't believe my initial post indicated any delusions of omnipotence on PZ's part.
Posted by: Pam Brown | November 16, 2009 1:44 PM
I don't understand if you atheists believe there is no God, why do you waste so much time thinking about Him? Are you sure there is no God? You better be sure because you are betting your life on that.
If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Posted by: Pam Brown | November 16, 2009 1:46 PM
I don't understand if you atheists believe there is no God, why do you waste so much time thinking about Him? Are you sure there is no God? You better be sure because you are betting your life on that.
If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 2:01 PM
Because folks like you keep trying to force your delusions down our throats. So we need to be defend ourselves against your lunacy.Just as sure as the following claims that also lack physical evidence: unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, tooth fairies, santa claus, the easter bunny. All items invented by men, with good tales, but no evidence for their existence. Do you have any hard physical evidence that your deity really exists?We live our life on Earth and then die. Just like you do. You have no evidence that your babble isn't a work of fiction, which means that the whole "everlasting life" is another piece of fiction. It is your delusion, and you are welcome to it. We prefer not to share delusions here. And delusions are what you believe without the proper physical evidence to back those beliefs.Posted by: Dania
|
November 16, 2009 2:08 PM
Pam Brown:
Pascal's Wager? Really?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 2:10 PM
If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I have no mouth and I must scream.
Posted by: Bonny Thoren | January 2, 2010 7:01 AM
To marketplace in footings of high-performance rather than price, and in order to specialize consequently, you want to play along the popular format of the 4 Ps marketing plan. That is, Price, Product, Place and Promotion obviously you recognise the weighty properties of the merchandise, and the price, but for place you should think approximately the type of mass who are willing to pay over 4x price of competing merchandise whereas the second-class option may be sold where accent is on cost, your ware will be suited to places/distributors where the clients will be willing to pay for high-performance. Thank you for this article! I've just discovered a easily stunning news blog about money Judge it!