I knew the creationists were obtuse, but this is going a little far. Denyse O’Leary is twittering about all these paranoid suspicions that Richard Dawkins or I are planning to sue to block the release of that silly creationist movie, Expelled, in a post titled Darwinist threat to sue pro-ID filmmakers? Friend of the studio thinks they have no case. It’s a bit bizarre. Neither of us have even made any faint noises to that effect. In my post on the subject, I wondered who funded it, why it was being favored by the DI since it was endorsing the religious nature of ID, and why they had to be dishonest in asking for the interview — and concluded by saying I was looking forward to seeing it and shredding its arguments. How is that to be interpreted as a threat to sue to prevent the release of the movie?
Furthermore, I made a rather unambiguous clarification in the comments:
Let me clarify something. I’m not going to sue. I have no interest in suing.
Is there a way to say that more plainly? Because it’s obviously too convoluted and difficult for a creationist to comprehend.
So let me reiterate once again for the stupid, the deluded, the conspiracy nuts, and the illiterate hacks (i.e., Denyse): not even in my private conversations with Dawkins and Eugenie Scott about this movie has anyone even brought up the possibility of suing or somehow interfering with the release. It’s not the way our brains work, perhaps sometimes to our detriment. My interest is in seeing the movie so I can give the transparently bad ideas behind it an enthusiastic ripping.
Now though, here’s the really ironic part. First comment on O’Leary’s bogus accusations:
They can’t help it. It is part of the natural authoritarian bent of athiests. They can’t win the battle of ideas so their only hope is to silence opposing ideas by legal action.
Not only is the argument patently false, but you have to notice that O’Leary also gloated over the Pivar lawsuit, in which she’s pleased that her pal Stuart is suing me to compel my silence.
These kooks are all about the projection, aren’t they?
Perhaps suing -would- be a wise course of action? You’re going to get the bad PR for suing whether or not you do, apparently, so why not protect your good name and prevent its being used to gull the stupid?
“Projection” seems about right. That or the fact that they are all just professional victims.
O’Leary and the herd she grazes with are constantly ranting about how “Darwinists” hold irrationally to their “religious dogma” in spite of “overwhelming evidence.” Honestly, I find myself scratching my head every time they try to deride science as religious crap.
It’s not a case of the pot calling the kettle black, it’s more like the pot calling the kettle a pot!
I clicked on the link to her blog. It’s sort of amusing, and a little sad, to see that the post has been up nearly a week and there’s not one comment. Either no one reads her or no one sees fit to comment on her work.
They really are all about the projection… everything from “I’m dogmatic therefore you must be”, to “I have faith therefore you must have faith”, to “I’m suppressing comments therefore you must be suppressing comments”, to “I wouldn’t let you not believe in God in a position of power therefore you wouldn’t let me believe in God in a position of power”, to “I’m trying to oppress you, therefore you must be oppressing me”.
If they would not do such things themselves in particular, they certainly do or ought to realize that their leaders would… all the way right up the chain to the ultimate “you’ll be sorry after you die” revenge fantasy.
I just haven’t seen much cogent realization of the first half of the those equations from that bunch. I’m sure that many do, internally, but it’s justified because we’re evil by definition.
creayshunists are bad spelars.
Denyse seems to have missed all the classes on irony during her educational career. I can understand how one can get a degree in English Lit without ever taking any real science, but how do you not understand irony?
Actually, my suspicion is that the creationists/IDers are more about pure, unadulerated dishonesty (towards themselves as much as to the outside world) than just projecting.
I commented on her Blogger article, but in the event she doesn’t publish it, here it is:
it’s simple, really. they live in Bizarro world, where everything is Bi-ZARR-o! Bi-ZARR-o! Bi-ZARR-o! Bi-ZARR-o!
That’s a special kind of nutty, isn’t it?
Personally, it seems to me that she’s making up the whole thing in a weak attempt to drum up interest in a deceptive and preachy documentary.
Still… It’s cute how ironic she is.
To borrow a phrase that some on the Dawkins site use. This is another example of ID batshittery!
Waitaminnit! Why aren’t you suing, PZ? If they’re really Xians, you should make out like a bandit: “And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” (Matthew 5:40) Ask for $1 million. If they’re True Christians™, they’ll give you at least twice that amount. After all, they wouldn’t dare to go against the advice of the Lamb of God, would they?
Perhaps they, terrified at the thought of being reduced to Christ-like penury (either that or admit their own hypocrisy), are merely trying to pull the ol’ reverse psychology on you.
No no no. She gets irony just fine. This is just *snicker* street theater!
Priceless.
Priceless.
O’Leary isn’t interested in facts. She’s just a small cog of the right-wing disinformation machine, hoping to be a larger cog, but unable to figure out how. For a real giggle, pick up one of her books. The writing is so graceless, and the content so ignorant, it’s amazing they got published.
As Brownian’s comment on Denyse’s site hasn’t appeared, I thought I would have a go at leaving one. If she’s going to call herself a journalist, she should of course be opposed to censorship:
Sweet Jesus, I love this blog. It’s like some huge dazzling flame that sucks in every insane wingnut from miles around. And oh lordy how they burn :)
In the mirror universe, Dembski is a dashing young successful scientist, and O’Leary doesn’t have a beard.
And don’t forget, “We’re authoritarians, so they must be authoritarians.”
It’s funny, despite their wailing and pearl-clutching with regards to the animal amoral state that supposedly reigns in the absence of a god, how they seem to adhere to this policy of “screw them before they can screw you”.
C’mon. Denyse has a crush on PZ. She all but called him a “doody head”.
I feel all dirty after looking at her blog. Sort of like I feel after listening to Limbaugh on the way to work.
If they’re that convinced you’re going to sue even when you’ve said otherwise, maybe there’s something in the film which they know is genuinely worth suing for.
how many times can one person tag/reference back to PZ Myers? I mean, does she have a hot and heavy crush or what?
I think you should sue for a talent fee. They clearly misrepresented the case that they were making a documentary, and instead created this work of fiction. Hollywood doesn’t like producers and directors that stiff their talent.
And, you could probably join the Screen Actors Guild with the credit.
Don’t sue to stop its showing — sue for a talent fee so they’ll have to show it to get the money to pay you.
Discovery will be very, very entertaining. Can’t wait to see Ben Stein’s contract and fee structure.
Yes, they’re classic cases. But, as Adrienne already pointed out, that’s merely a subset of their underlying and all-pervasive dishonesty. The more religious (or similarly at odds with reality) they are, the more dishonest they are compelled to be – including with themselves.
Natural authoritarian bent of…atheists?
I think I just fell in a wormhole to another dimension.
I was listening to the Velvet Underground & Nico while reading this post, and for some reason “Venus in Furs” seemed exceedingly appropriate for O’Leary and her seeming masochism in attempting yet again to provoke PZ’s disapproval. Even moreso, after reading all of the speculative comments here about her ‘crush’. Thus:
“PZ your servant comes in bells, please don’t forsake her!
Strike dear Master and cure her heart…”
Does that also apply to all the innocent(?) dupes of that stupid Borat film? I haven’t seen it but I gather it’s a fictional documentary which included many normal (non-actor) people. So, if your principle is correct, they ought to have some sort of credit or rights too.
PZ: Forgive this violation of Net ettiquette, but (shouting) ED DARRELL IS 100 PERCENT RIGHT.
These people are LIARS! You have no idea, really, how they are going to twist what you say and if you don’t have your own record of what was said and done, this could be like Dr. Dawkins’ famous ‘pause’.
I urge you to request a copy of the complete footage of your interview, through a lawyer, as a means of establishing that you are concerned about the uses to which that footage will be used. At the very least, take advantage of the free counsel that you’ve apparently been offered on the Pivar deal and see if Ed’s suggestion has merit. You might also want to check and see if any release that you signed allows them to sub-contract and sell all the footage to a second production without your consent, or without providing a copy of the complete original footage for the purposes that were originally represented.
LIARS, ENEMIES OF SCIENCE, SUE THE HELL OUT OF THEM.
OK, show’s over folks. Keep moving.
So, if I wrote “Denyse is stupid!” would Pivar sue me?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Because, dammit, to belong to the secret-handshake, bestest-buddy, true-blue fundie club, you’ve got to be persecuted. The drive-through at McWhiz Burgers screwed up your order? Persecution. Newspaper got tossed into the bushes instead of on your porch? Persecution. Somebody points out that they were less than forthright about their motives for filming a movie spot? Yup, persecution again. And it’s oh, so much more persecute-y to claim that you’re being silenced (just like that minority of non-Christians in this contry keep magically “silencing” the vast majority Christians). Plus, we all know that lying doesn’t seem to be a big problem for these folks because, after all, they’re “trying to save souls.” Gag.
What are you talking about? Creationists don’t interpret the Bible literally.
Oh wait.
We’re awwww-thoritarian and it’s OK,
We sleep all night and we work all day.
We cut down kooks, we eat their lunch
We go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays we go shopping and have buttered scones for tea
Scott (#29): IAAL, and believe me, a lawsuit, or even the maneuverings preliminary to filing or not filing one, is not the sort of job most people want to take on. Yes, “job,” because it is a full time occupation on top of whatever else you do for a living, and in contrast to a real job, it’s expense rather than income.
Only someone who loves this sort of “job” will be pleased at spending his/her time this way. PZ, who already has a couple of jobs as professor and blogger that he likely enjoys, certainly doesn’t need this as a third.
Denyse might know something. Like the film really is a complete pile of lies and the biologists were quote mined and misrepresented. As Roman soldiers who happily nail up on a cross any creos they can find and therefore have rather unusual and gruesome sculpture collections in their backyards. Or as zombies who walk the night capturing and eating the brains of creos. Hard way to survive, got to eat a lot of those little brains.
Alternatively, she just might be so used to lying that it is on automatic pilot by now.
I vote for #1. The website itself is a veritable mountain of lie after lie. I thought about deconstructing it and decided that the next week or two are booked up and there wasn’t enough time.
I demand an Irony Meter warning, else I shall sue for recompense due to willful negligence on your part… You know how expensive these things are?
Sheesh.
Its a strawman. Knowing the wingers who read their shit believe absolutely everything, they throw out an unfounded comment that they’re being sued to prevent the release of their “movie” and pretty soon, the wurlitzer is wound up. Hot air blows through jesusland and scorn is heaped down upon those nasty atheists for preventing the truth from coming out.
I’m going to sue Denyse O’Leary for robbing the planet of valuable space and oxygen.
When God invented crap-for-brains, why did he concentrate all his efforts on fetal O’Leary? Seems unfair.
Where they can’t find actual evidence of persecution, they invent it. Which is to say pretty much always.
OK,
I will go see the movie and anytime PZ, Dawkins or Scott are on screen, I will stand and cheer (very loudly). Let the free exchange of ideas playout in the public square.
Any other takers?
tully
… Scott? Head spinning… can’t breath… blackness….
The psychology here is terrifying. I don’t even know where to begin. PZ, I think nailed in your last sentence with two words. “The kooks”. Enough said.
Your plan is okay, tully, provided you sneak in without paying.
The title of Al Franken’s book “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them” pretty aptly describes Denyse O’Leary’s nonsense. She is living in Alice’s “Wonderland.” Everything is upside and backward. How frightening it must be for her to live in such a completely delusional state all of the time. I’m sure there must be some therapist out there somewhere who could help her. Then again, maybe not…
Suing them would only play into their little pity party of claiming they are oppressed.
YOU SEE! YOU SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!?!
I urged P.Z. to sue for talent pay: >>And, you could probably join the Screen Actors Guild with the credit.< < Someone noted:
Re: #26 above. I agree. I was still laughing about it when I read your comment. Authoritarian bent of athiests indeed. Head might blow any minute.
Well, unlike Jud, IANAL, but I’ve been around enough lawyers and lawsuits to have to wholeheartedly agree with Jud’s response @ #34. To say that lawsuits (or even the preambles to potential lawsuits that don’t result in actual lawsuits) are stressful, time consuming and expensive doesn’t even cover the half of it. You just don’t want to go there unless you want to make a full time job of it. Really.
I’ve been reading O’Leary’s blogs for a while now. It’s fascinating stuff. Most of her blog entries are just complete non-sequitors and leave me scratching my head with a “what was that all about?”. It’s all just rantings and ravings with no actual substance.
PZ – have you noticed that she is about to publish a new book (in conjunction with Mario Beauregard) called “The Spiritual Brain” – apparently she is going to present the case for the existence of the non-materialist mind. If you’re in the mood for a good ripping, I don’t think you’ll need to wait for the movie, looks like this book will be out September 1st.
It appears to the that one of two possibilities are true.
(1) The creators of the movie are obsessing over their sinful rolls in producing the film. This has resulted in a paranoia that they may get what the deserve (i.e. justice).
(2) A key part of their strategy was to be sued. They could then claim their 1st amendment rights are being suppressed. In that those who are being manipulated and misrepresented is no problem since adding one more lie on top of the others is obviously no problem for individuals of such moral (sic) foundations.
Next these fanatics will complain they’ve been persecuted by the lacking of civil lawsuits brought upon them ;-)
Does anybody get it? The ONLY reason they start talking about sueing is that they wish that happens. If it happens, they can be a martyr (does anyone want to send them two pieces of wood and three nails?). If it does not happen, they can proclaim victory, with sentences such as: “Our exposure of the truth(tm) has made them change their minds and that is the sole reason they did not sue us. And that is the truth(tm), the whole truth(tm) and nothing but the truth(tm), so help me god(tm) almighty!”. Regardless of what you say, do, eat, etc, they will frame it, bend it and make prepare it for their audience.
Wow. She made Scott yell. I’ve never seen Scott yell before.
[runs and hides under the bed]
Or, Larry, if there is no threat of lawsuit and the movie goes to screen without a hitch, they will rejoice very publicly about how it’s a victory against the Darwinists, who know they would lose a case in court.
HIWTYL. (Heads I win, tails you lose. I’m trying to kick start a new, impenetrable internet acronym.)
“Look, a kook wrote a book!”
And that was all it took
to make me see
how easy to be
financed, famous, and still a frakking crook.
“Look, a kook wrote a book!”
And that was all it took
to make me see
how easy to be
financed, famous, and still a frakking crook.
Wow. She made Scott yell. I’ve never seen Scott yell before.
[runs and hides under the bed]
Sorry. I just can’t stand it when they lie for Jesus. It’s one thing to be misled, to let faith trump evidence, to view everything through the filter of your own experience. All of us are vulnerable to those things, and so I don’t harbor any bad feelings to most creationists as people.
But (ominously) when they lie about what they’re doing, in order to get what they want…..NO MERCY.
I admit I can’t help but analyze this particular ID crowd – it’s my natural inclination to understand how things work. It’s my psychological Mike Rowe.
One thing that has struck me about the UD/ID people is that it’s rather . . . regressed. There’s elaborate fantasy worlds, plain denial of reality, massive emotional outbursts, and self-exciting systems of ideas unpiercable by actual occurences. It’s a bunch of people stuck at an adolescent level of functioning – and it’s a dysfunctional adolescent level, to be fair to adolescents.
It reminds me nothing more than groups of people I’ve seen having elaborate knock-down drag-out online fights over character relationships in fiction. Self-exciting and ultimately disconnected.
No offense, anybody, but I get the impression that suing over this film will only have the effect of giving it free advertising. It’s an old trick. My advice: ignore the ding-dongs for now and shred the flick after it comes out – my guess is that it won’t box well, anyway. My 2c.
Wait a minute… AUTHORITARIAN bent of ATHEISTS?
That boy needs to put down the crack pipe.
-jcr
From the world of quote mining this:
“Let me clarify something. I’m not going to sue. I have no interest in suing.”
becomes this:
Let me clarify something. I’m…going to sue. I have (great) interest in suing.
Whee, this is fun!
> These kooks are all about the projection, aren’t they?
Indeed.
I’ve been observing fundies for many years now and it’s the most striking similarity that I’ve seem in almost all of them. A complete lack of empathy that leaves them with the only tool of projection to try to guess how people feel, think and are. And, as the only thing they know is themselves… Actually the best way to get to knows *them* is to look at the scarecrow they attack: it is a a clone of themselves with the dark side cranked up.
Does anybody knows if anything has been written over that matter?
—
El Guerrero del Interfaz
You could try asking Bob Altemeyer whether there’s any such extension to his work on authoritarians. He got as far as establishing that lack of experience of the real world was a factor, which is a long way towards them lacking valid models for any other people’s motivations. Robert Sapolsky had some suggestions too, viz them being schizotypal and perhaps having OCD.