I wrote to Mark Mathis about his movie, Expelled, which I was told was going to be called Crossroads. Here is the entirety of my message:
Hey, I just learned today that the actual film is now called
“Expelled”, that it features Ben Stein, and that it’s really a gung-
ho pro-creationism/anti-science film. I would have agreed to be
interviewed even if you’d been honest with me about the subject —
I’m not reticent about my opinions — so I don’t understand why you
felt you had to conceal your intent. Care to explain yourself? Was
this the movie you planned from the beginning?
Now I’ve gotten his reply!
Mr. Myers,
Thank you for your recent communication. Please know that I strongly
disagree with the insinuations and characterizations made in your e-mail
to me. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for sharing your viewpoints, and
I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
What a curiously defensive response. There was no insinuation at all in my email: he wasn’t honest with me, and he did conceal his intent. I gave him an opportunity to respond, and all he can say is that he disagrees with me on something in that email? What was it?
I think the underhanded way he obtained interviews with some of his subjects is a sore point that he’d rather not discuss. I guess I can’t blame him — if I’d had to misrepresent myself to get an interview I’d probably be a bit shamefaced, too.
Doesn’t seem too sharp–maybe he thinks a gung-ho charges by hour?
Sounds like a form letter. As if he were getting a lot of critical email, and couldn’t respond individually….
My guess is he doesn’t actually know what the word “insinuation” means.
Welcome to Hollywood, babe.
Slash and burn, slash and burn.
Does the email text display differently in different browsers? I see “Fuck you, tool of Satan!”
He just lied again. Don’t make the simple complex.
Oh well, you really needed that email. Reporters always like to give people a chance to comment and maybe correct inaccurate information. Quite often, like the senator from Idaho, they get things like “repeated emails and phone calls were sent or left on answering machines and have not been yet been returned.”
It is OK, the first rule when you have screwed up is, STOP DIGGING. The creos aren’t smart enough to figure this out. This veritable mountain range of lies will be the gift that keeps on giving. When the movie comes out, the lies will have to be collected and fisked for posterity, as a demonstration that some moral codes given by some gods aren’t worth a penny. A religious cult that lies constantly isn’t much of a religion.
Wow, talk about a non-reply, reply.
The movie needs its own anti-website. Something along the lines of “Lies of Expelled and the Demented Cultists who tell them.” It is going to be a vast collection. The movie even started out that way, different title, different subject, lying to the interviewees.
The might sue but so what? California is a strong anti-SLAPP suit state and truth is an absolute defense against slander, libel, and defamation accusations.
My guess is its for legal purposes:if you decide to sue and you have him admitting black on white that this is what he did, you’re a good way toward proving he did it- as long as he denies it he is(from his own POV) denying you legal ammo.
I agree with Vance. This has “form letter” written all over it. I don’t think he even noticed that your email was from somebody he had in his movie. I think he just hit the “form letter to the hellbound blasphemers who are writing to me in droves” button and moved on.
Maybe he has a godbot answering his email?
No, actually he knew exactly who I was. I wrote that last week, and he replied fairly quickly with this response:
The letter in the article is his “appropriate response”.
If it is a form letter, and he is (still) replying, then e-mail sent by others should get back something very similar?
I’m with Vance, et al., on the form letter interpretation. I thought it was noteworthy that he addressed you as Mr. Myers, rather than Dr. or Professor: Whether respectfully or derisively, I would’ve expected him to use the title. Not doing so suggest a lack of awareness re who he was writing to.
How can people so fundamentally lacking in integrity be so convinced of their righteousness? Isn’t there some element of self-reflection in being religious?
All I know is these people are tougher than me. I could never survive the cognitive dissonance. It would tear me to pieces.
To be fair to Mathis, he’s probably thinking of PZ’s letter in the context of all of the complaints made at this and at other sites. Sure, the letter doesn’t really contain the insinuations he’s claims are there (he could learn how to respond to specific statements, that’s for sure), but he’s a creationist (most likely) who probably can’t separate out the details, so he conflates the letter with the blog.
It’s lame, like everything by these IDiots, however it’s not likely that he’s responding only to the letter, but knows what is being said elsewhere and indeed can’t answer the charges adequately.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
“ass-prod”? Is he gay? (Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but you know how these conservatives are.) Craig’s evil twin maybe?
The new information provided by PZ @12 (which he must have been typing even as I was typing my comment @14) is intriguing: That the immediate response was so colloquial makes it all the stranger that the ultimate “appropriate response” sounds so much like a form letter delivered to a stranger. Curiouser and curiouser…
ID is built on a lie.
The DI is a propaganda machine for which lying is just another
useful tool.
Of course, they are going to employ like minded propagandists for whom lying is the order of the day. I’m sure they just don’t understand why you don’t like being lied to.
“ass prod” is a reference to my article.
I’ve now heard from someone else who wrote to Mathis. Exactly the same reply was returned — it’s clearly a form letter.
I think we can safely say Premise Productions/Rampant Films is clamming up.
So, he got PZ’s letter, then got a bunch more, wrote quickly back to PZ, then formulated the generic response and sent it to everyone in his inbox?
I just put this email through my creo translation program:
Dear Mr. Myers:
Shut up and drop dead, sucker.
Well at least you know which species of slime mold you are dealing with. Valuable information for a biologist. LOL
Mathis:
That is, “I’ll get back to you after I check with my lawyer and we put together a form letter.”
I marvel at the ass-prod’s ability to write a response to PZ’s “insinuating” message under such trying conditions — clutching the pearls with one hand and reaching for the smelling salts with the other.
Those with the temerity to accuse Mathis of writing a form letter to PZ might be interested to see the letter he wrote to me:-
“Mr. Dawkins,
Thank you for your recent communication. Please know that I strongly
disagree with the insinuations and characterizations made in your e-mail
to me. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for sharing your viewpoints, and
I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
Sincerely,
Mark Mathis
Associate Producer, Rampant Films/Premise Media”
It would help if he were specific about what characterizations he felt he needed to disagree with, but I can tell you the answer: he doesn’t like his film because called pro-creationist or anti-science, because golly, isn’t intelligent design supposed to be all sciencey and stuff?
That guess would explain why he wasn’t specific, too: because he knows exactly where that line of horseshit would immediately go.
Mr. Dawkins? Mr.?! Mr. Ass Prod clearly does not know who he is effing with.
Jeebus christ! He even called Dr. Dawkins “Mr.”.
This clown has a definite lack of respect.
Even creationists don’t always agree that they’re “anti-science” (although many of them proudly wear the label, see FSTDT), so chances are that’s the “characterization” that he’s objecting to.
Who were the “slime-snake” people again? This guy seems like a pretty slimy snake to me. Perhaps he was too busy intelligently designing his new monkey suit to write an actual response.
Of course he wrote a form letter, you silly! He’s a busy man, he’s probably lying to a dozen interviewees for his next documentary as we speak!
Well, that was a robust non-denial denial. I hope you sent a sincere non-apology apology.
That tears it. I’m writing him a letter to tell him I think he’s the greatest man on the planet, a giant among men, a dashing playboy who women cannot resist, an uncommonly sophisticated philanthropist, a worldly scholar with a poet’s soul, and an all around awesome dude.
He’s not embarrassed — PZ (or any one of us) is just not his intended audience. PZ was just a bit player in his little show. I’m sure he is spending all his time penning emails to the various fundamentalist religious organization to whip up a frenzy to promote, screen, review, and watch his movie. You know, to create a “buzz”.
I think the difference is made clearer now. Evolutionists are slime-snake-monkey-people, whereas creationists are just slime.
Good People,
You are clearly under appreciating the virtue of this reply. It is trite, short, and perfectly dismissive. No one who received this in their inbox would ever mistake its bland tone for meaningful dialog. I promise we’ll see no such indifference in the up-coming movie. I would even hazard that the movie editors will find room to mention “the courteous response sent by Associate Producer Mathis to the ravenous Darwinists” somewhere in the film.
You need a better background image for guys like Mathis. While Gumbys are loud, dumb and annoying, they’re not dishonest- when a Gumby yelled “my brain ‘urts!” his brain most likely did ‘urt; when he yelled “we’re going to operate!” he was indeed going to operate.
Now what background image would be suitable for someone who is slick, personable and a damned liar?
“Now what background image would be suitable for someone who is slick, personable and a damned liar?”
The Flinstone ‘museum’? Damn.. I can’t even remember its name. Good, the pills are working.
So where in “gods’ creation” is this film going to play? I can’t imagine the local cineplex using one of their screens for this. Maybe it will go direct to DVD for the home-school audience.
I’ve got one! I’ll give you a hint: they’re illegal in Texas.
What I’d like to know is whether Eugenie Scott was also called “Mr.” in her reply email. I suspect she’s too nice to mention it though.
Remember when Hannah Maxson and her dork friends at the Kornell Kreationist Klub were so bitterly offended by the journalist who passed herself off as a creotwit in order to get access?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1425
I wonder if they’ll react with the same indignation to Mark Mathis’ sneaky tactics.
Any bets?
Thank you for your recent communication. Please know that I strongly disagree with the insinuations and characterizations made in your e-mail to me.
Dipshit probably sent Myers’ message directly to his lawyer. “Can we sue him? Can we? Can we?”
Speaking of Kornell Kreotwits, did Hannah Maxson graduate? If so, does anyone know what awesome intellectual experiences she is seeking next? Is she interning with Dr. Behe? Or is she going to Africa to evangelize poor folks and put yet another chip on her shoulder?
Tommy Flanagan
Oh. My. Freaking. God.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/312
IDURC Announces 2007 Casey Luskin Graduate Award
The recipient of the 2007 Casey Luskin Graduate Award will remain anonymous for the protection of the recipient. The many students, professors, and scientists who have been denied degrees or tenure, and removed from positions and jobs for no other reason than acceptance of–or even sympathy to–intelligent design theory is very telling of the importance of keeping these bright young minds out of the crosshairs of those opposed to open-minded investigation and critical thought.
The recipient of this year’s award is a graduate earning degrees in chemistry and chemical biology and mathematics. This student has demonstrated excellence and courage in research and promotion of intelligent design. The recipient will receive a certificate of achievement, a $100 award, and an autographed copy of Dr. Michael J. Behe’s newest book, The Edge of Evolution: the Search for the Limits of Darwinism.
The recipient will receive a certificate of achievement, a $100 award, and an autographed copy of Dr. Michael J. Behe’s newest book, The Edge of Evolution: the Search for the Limits of Darwinism.
Second prize is TWO copies of The Edge of Evolution.
Ba-dum-CHING!
All that anonymous excellence and courage, and barely enough money for a decent hand-job. Or whatever the female equivalent would be.
“All that anonymous excellence and courage, and barely enough money for a decent hand-job. Or whatever the female equivalent would be. ”
A house cleaning.
Am I RIGHT ladies?!
That form letter was surely written by somebody’s lawyer. I’m sure after your original post and the following series of posts, and your e-mail various phone calls were made to various people. There was a conference call and this is the outcome.
phat
At least he has a sense of humor. Adding “ass prod” to his signature block was pretty good. I think I am warming to him.
ass-prod? Did I miss something? WTF?
About the “dr” versus “mr”: my policy is that if someone calls me “Ms. Reader” then I will call the person Mr/Ms/Dr as appropriate. If someone, such as one of my doctors, calls me “Texas” (my first name, ha ha) then I respond by using that person’s first name.
I don’t think someone with a doctorate deserves a special designation for “respect” versus someone with a bachelor’s degree, masters (myself), or no degree at all. To me everyone I deal with gets respect, regardless of age, education level, etc. I don’t think adding a title constitutes showing respect.
Sounds like a good idea would have been: ask around for a one-off agent to review the contract, and make sure there’s a loophole retaining rights to the full interview.
The reply definitely sounds like a form-letter composed to simulate an honest, busy, professional. I guess time will tell how widely this gets released.
I’m thinking he’s probably dumb enough to believe O’Leary’s nonsense about “Darwinists” suing to keep the movie from playing (or maybe he even started it) so the response letter was all legalled for his safety.
Associate Producer ot Assistant Producer. I’d guess.
Buncha gutless wonders.
#46
i might be being picky but if they are doing a good job of researching, and hence getting it reviewed, plus promoting ID in general then surely they have already surrendered anonymity.
Well I don’t know about you all, but I usually refer to Dr. Dawkins as ‘Romanadvoratrelundar’s husband’. Because, like creationists, I can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality. =p
Following the occurrence of events from “Crossroads” to “Expelled” it does seem that Mark Mathis was less than forthcoming in his goals and motivations. However, for PZ to state that “[t]here was no insinuation at all in my email” is not true either.
To write, “even if you’d been honest with me about the subject” implies that Mark was not. I must agree that this certainly seems to be the situation given the final usage of footage, but it is also possible that there was a misunderstanding and/or Mark sold his footage due to financial needs. Who knows?
Additionally, the statement, “I don’t understand why you felt you had to conceal your intent” implies that Mark did. It is possible that he did not at the time of the interview, and the realization of concealment was only seen after the fact by PZ.
Before getting flamed, I would just like to state that Mark’s intent and approach, as described in this blog, does seem to lack integrity. However, it is also not true that there were no insinuations in PZ’s mail. There are assumptions to PZ’s email statements, probably much like Mark had assumptions in his interview.
From the news item:
“People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale.”
I’m looking forward to this movie!
Right. Here’s the thing. This LIAR must be held accountable. I know a lot of you skeptical types fully expect guys like this to lie, and you’ve got good reason to. I know that some of you are more amused than anything by this. But if someone doesn’t confront this guy repeatedly in a setting where the people in the pews can see the mendacity for themselves, the lying goes on, the power structure remains intact, and the alliances against science education become (if anything) more robust as their populations grow.
So, when this movie comes out, the people behind this movie should be trashed in the public eye. They don’t deserve any quarter, any mercy, any compassion until they admit their misdeeds. I mean, seriously, PZ, the mildness of your response almost annoys this theist. I say, sic ’em!
“That form letter was surely written by somebody’s lawyer.”
Bingo. Any communications whatever from PZ, Dawkins, etc., would be treated as a potential prelude to a lawsuit, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Particularly when PZ’s letter (however correctly) says Mathis concealed his true intent, Mathis’ response was designed to make sure it could not be read as admitting any such thing.
Huzzah for Scott’s comment and suggestion (#61). Additionally, while I don’t hero-worship or get frightened easily, I am not sure I would want to explain why I sent both Prof Myers and Prof Dawkins the same form letter in response to some pretty pointed questions. One suspects that it might just make them rather angry and even sharper in rejoinders?
No, actually he knew exactly who I was. I wrote that last week, and he replied fairly quickly with this response:
PZ,
I promise I’m not ignorning you. I’ve got a lot on my plate at the moment, but plan on sending you an appropriate response first part of the week.
Have a wonderful weekend,
Mark “ass-prod” Mathis
The letter in the article is his “appropriate response”.
Gee it took him a week to come up with:
“Thank you for your recent communication. Please know that I strongly disagree with the insinuations and characterizations made in your e-mail to me. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for sharing your viewpoints, and I wish you the best in all your endeavors.”
LOL.
Stuart
I think it would be far better if this was done by another theist, rather than an atheist. It’s too easy for them to dismiss PZ, no matter what he says. You, on the other hand, are not so easy to dismiss. I say, sic ’em!
It seems clear to me that the “insinuation” he disagrees with is PZ’s statement that the film is “pro-creationism/anti-science”. He believes that ID and his film are pro-science and that ID and creationism are different.
I call bullshit. There is a fairly probable description of the movie’s intent. There is an declaration that PZ is willing to be interviewed without any sort of prejudice or pre-condition and is forthright and honest with how he interviews. PZ noted that the intent of the producer might of been hidden by the producer which means the interview was obtained through a false premise. PZ asked for an explanation of this discrepancy (ie, why did he lie or change his plans) and even proffered a potential defense (change of movie plans) to explain away the apparent lie.
This whole “insinuations” thing is a load of crap and how a liar is trying to turn the tables and change the argument by playing the role of victim. A rather typical avoidance strategy used by small children, politicians and career liars when confronted.
Right on.
Moses,
Give ghl a break. It’s pretty clear that Prof. Myers was saying the guy was deceptive. He wasn’t insinuating it, he was saying it outright. So ghl was wrong when he claimed, “However, for PZ to state that “[t]here was no insinuation at all in my email” is not true either.”. I sure ghl can see things in this light given the generous interpretation of the other guys letter. ;)
Right, ghl? Right any ladies?
Hey Rey, What makes you think their are any ladies here?
Dr Myers,
I don’t think he’s defensive. Rather he’s being antagonistic.
He’s still hoping that you’ll sue!
Some sort of crucifixion/persecution complex I think.
Stay your course. His 15 minutes of fame will soon be flushed down the toilet, as will any potential for his career.
phat nailed it in comment #50.
Over at the Comics Curmudgeon, they call it “painting the garage”…
I think you the nail on the head, Zombie. The producer doesn’t see the film as anti-science, he probably sees it as pro-science, as he’s trying to get real, good science out from under the oppressive heel of jack-booted atheists, naturalists and Darwinists. Or at least that would be his story (though he might offer it in slightly less dramatic terms).
The anti-science bit and some of the other phrasing is a little hostile. PZ appears to be completely justified in everything he said, but also I can see why the producer guy would get defensive, to be fair.
I’m also not convinced the message was a form letter … at least not until someone else reports getting the exact same response (if someone has done so, I missed it).
Not that it will do any good, but if I were PZ I might take one more stab at getting an answer, being slightly more diplomatic this time. Something like:
“I’m sorry if you feel anything I made any unwarranted suggestions, but I must insist that my question merits a substantive answer.
When I agreed to the interview, the impression I was given was that this was to be a balanced piece titled Crossroads, on the subject of the “intersection of science and religion.” I now discover that the film title is to be Expelled and focuses on the academic standing of Intelligent Design, taking a clear position on the subject.
I’m not reticent about my opinions — so I don’t understand why you felt you might feel compelled to conceal your intent. Was this the movie you planned from the beginning?”
I don’t see how he could possibly take offense to something like that, but it still demands an answer unless he has something to hide. Of course, he probably does have something to hide, so a real reply is not likely to be forthcoming.
Just to say, I left a negative (but polite) comment on the page linking to the interview with Expelled’s producer.
(http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-08-27T14_35_24-07_00)
The comment led to a bit of a debate with a couple of ID enthusiasts yesterday (28 Aug). Myself and another anti-ID commentator were arguing with one ID-er in particular. It was all quite friendly.
This morning, I find that the comments function, and the thread, have disappeared. Could this be a dogmatic suppression of free debate? Surely not.
@Robert Bell (#74)
See #25 from Richard Dawkins: he also received exactly the same letter, so it is undoubtedly a generic (haha, I typed genetic first out of habit) letter and not personalised for PZ.
Given that “Expelled” is pro-creation, is it legitimate to refer to it as that fu(king film?
Just asking.
Lady (well, I suppose some would disagree, but my anatomy matches) here =)
Scott, I think you do a lot of good here, reminding us that not all theists think that a movie like this is justified in deceit just because it’s “God’s work.” I think you and yours should get right to the sic’ing. The rest of us will be when the movie comes out.
Just so you know, IMDB finally put this film into the database. Now’s the chance to make some user-submitted comments about it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1092000/
Looks like there’s 2 entries, though. Not sure which one is the real one and which one’s the dummy.
DrFrank, thanks, I somehow missed that one.
Pictures of Dembski, Behe and, I don’t know, maybe Ken Ham or Casey Luskin Photoshopped to look like the Three Stooges?
On second thought, that’s too insulting to the Stooges.
That, or a nice, waterproof vibrator.
PZ says, “I guess I can’t blame him — if I’d had to misrepresent myself to get an interview I’d probably be a bit shamefaced, too.”
No. There is no shame in anybody who deceives for a living. This guy is SHAMELESS, as are literally thousands of others in that industry.
These are precisely the sort of swine the creationists require to promote their slop.
It seems your initial letter to the producer was very aggressive. It would only appear natural to write back offering a simple paragraph of no wrong doing and wishing you luck.
My suggestion to you Mr. myers is stop whinning. The more you whine, the more of an idiot you appear to be.
Why do you care if he changed the name of the film, or who else was in it if, as you claim, you would have appeared any way? This looks like a classic atheist ploy to discredit anyone who dares to go against their “orthodoxy.”
P.S. Ben Stein is going to become even richer than he already is with this one, that picture of him on the movie poster in the school boy uniform is priceless!
I can’t understand the negtivity of this article and so many of the replies: How can Mark Mathis have lied or misled? He’s a Born Again Xtian, probably Evangelical!
you seem confused, maybe you should look up the word insinuation. You may not have as explicitly accused him of anything, as you are now doing. But you imply he was misleading, dishonest, and reticent about his opinions.
Seriously, this article makes you look dumb as well as insecure, seeking out anyway to demean your opponent. Really, you should know the principles of a good argument.