Clinton Dawkins: Guilty as Charged
| March 26, 2008 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
In my previous post where it was confirmed that Paul “PZ” Myers fooled the hosts of a private screening of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” by RSVPing to an invitation he never received I reserved judgement on Richard Dawkins, giving Dawkins the benefit of doubt that he may have been duped by Myers into thinking he was an invited guest at the private screening.
Well, there is no longer any doubt. Richard Dawkins registered for the screening as “Clinton” Dawkins. How many of you knew Dawkins’ first name was Clinton? Registering for the event using a first name which he never uses for anything else is about as red-handed as you can get. Dawkins was fully aware he was sneaking into a private screening to which he wasn’t invited and attempted to hide his presence by using his legal first name in the registration.
Anyone who continues to think that Myers and Dawkins are not guilty of chicanery in this matter is in denial.
50 Responses to Clinton Dawkins: Guilty as Charged
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A source for this assertion would be valuable. Are you claiming that Dawkins also RSVP’d to an event he was not invited to? Or by register, do you mean at the door.
As some of you know, I was Expelled from PZ’s Evolander blog because the topic of PZ’s gatecrashing came up. Of course, PZ still has not substantiated his claims that “just about everybody” who used the RSVP system to the private screening did so without an invitation.
Allen
What don’t you understand about what an RSVP is? Myers and Dawkins RSVPed to invitations they never received. Both of them have been following this movie closely, to say the least as they’re both stars in it, and are absolutely well aware that these were private showings by invitation only to “receptive” audiences. To get a “buzz” on it going. Everyone in the world that’s been following this movie knows that. If you have any doubt whatsoever that Myers and Dawkins weren’t aware of all this and took advantage of the host’s open but not advertised web address for people RSVP private screening invitations screening then you are in denial. Plain and simple, denial.
Allen
Per your numbered points
1) A publicly accessible website (with no language about “restricting access”) has an unrestricted link via which anyone can register for an advanced screening of a film.
You are is equivocating. The page is titled RSVP. Pretty much everyone as smart as a 5th grader in the U.S. knows what that is and that you don’t RSVP an invitation you didn’t receive. The URL was not advertised. It appeared only on invitations to private screenings. A well known ID detractor, Glen Davidson, found it not long ago and found you could get your name on the guest list without being invited. He told all his buddies on (at least) talk.org the week before the Minnesota showing. Myers leapt at the chance to sneak in.
2) There is also an option to bring up to three guests, with no mention of having to register them or bring ID.
Yeah. Let’s count the members in the party, shall we? There was Myers, his wife, his daughter, his daughter’s boyfriend, Dawkins, and three unnamed Dawkins Foundation employees. That’s 8 people. Unless my math is wrong that requires TWO invited people with 3 guests each.
ID was required and if you actually got an invitation you’d know that. If ID wasn’t required and Dawkins was not registered under his own then why did Dawkins have to show his passport? Please explain.
3) A person (who, BTW, is featured in the film being screened and is thanked publicly for his participation in the film’s credits) registers for an advanced screening via the public website and follows all of the instructions contained therein.
They knew they weren’t invited and these screenings were by invitation only.
4) However, upon reaching the theatre, he is asked to leave and complies peacefully with the request.
Why was he singled out of a crowd and why were 7 others in his party allowed in? Does Myers get an applause for obeying the law or just what’s so significant that it deserves mention? Millions of Americans obey the law every single day.
5) This request is verified as having originated with Mark Mathis, who is also on record as saying that the reason he asked the person to leave is that he wanted him to pay admission to the film, rather than attend the advanced screening.
So basically Mark was gracious enough to let a number of others he knew were hostile to the movie and never invited to see a pre-release version but drew the line with PZ Myers who’s called Mathis every name in the book at every opportunity. Seems like a good enough reason to me. It was a private showing after all and Myers had not been invited to it.
6) When one of the guests, having been admitted under the published procedures noted above, stands up to ask a question during the Q&A following the film, he is recognized by Mark Mathis and is publicly thanked for his participation.
Mark was quite gracious about someone hostile to the movie showing up uninvited was he not? He trusted Dawkins would not act out.
7) People who attended the Q&A session noted that the person asking the question was polite and well-mannered, and that having received an answer to his questions, he sat down and yielded the floor to other participants without a fuss.
Mark’s trust was well placed.
I don’t really see how any of this is contrary to the point that Dawkins knew he wasn’t invited.
Please see The smoking gun: Comment #81 and #83 which leaves absolutely no reasonable doubt that PZ Myers knew he was gaming the RSVP system.
Upright Biped
We have to beat them at the science, no?
First we have to have a non-hostile work environment where the science is done. In fact exposing that hostile work environment is what the documentary is all about.
William Wallace
Press release from Premise Media:
http://www.businesswire.com/po.....ewsLang=en
The producers were notified that Myers and others who were not invited had signed up for the screening. They were also aware that Dawkins, who oddly used his formal surname “Clinton” instead of Richard to sign up, was in attendance.
He signed up -somewhere-. My guess is that he was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement at the door and that was the “sign up” Premise is referring to or that he did indeed RSVP through the unpublished portal for invited guests. Take your pick.
DaveScot,
Thanks. Also, did you see the comments at PZ’s own blog yet?
William
I’ve seen more comments than Carter has little liver pills. You’ll have to be more specific.
Sorry, the comments described here.
DaveScot-
Probably quite a few of us, since it was mentioned less than a year ago on this blog. I think it was when some individual was trying to minimize Prof. Dawkins’ publication record, but botched the whole thing. I can’t recall the details. If you search Uncommon Descent for “Clinton” you get a link to the post, but clicking on the link just gets a 404 search error. Unfortunate the way computers make things disappear.
In my humble opinion they should have just let Myers and Dawkins watch it. Sure they are belligerent, but so what, don’t we have the moral high ground here? Why resort to their tactics. Did the producers have a right to “expel” them? Sure, but why not just let them watch it?
As for Dr.Allen, your comments are appreciated, and helpful. The discourse has proved enlightening to myself at least, a devout theist and mostly ID’er. To the other faithful ID’ers keep up the good work and don’t stoop to the level of the Myers and Dawkins of the world.
*Sorry, I know Dawkins was not expelled as my post made it sound.
William
Yes, I read those but I found the Glen Davidson smoking gun myself by simply googling the private URL and discovering Glen Davidson on talk.origins describing how to get in without an invitation then advising that the non-disclosure agreement could be violated without getting caught by anonymous web posting. Actually advising people to commit a crime… hmmmm.
http://groups.google.com/group.....4?lnk=raot
Here is an interesting comment in response to a March 11th announcement of the Chicago private screening including the private screening RSVP address:
http://onegreatcityblog.blogsp.....ening.html
MacNeill:
“As for discussing the actual content of the film, that will be difficult for me, as no screenings of the film are planned for central New York as far as I can tell.”
So this answers the question I posed to you @ 16, where I asked you if you had seen any of the screenings. So therefore, Mr.MacNeill, I think you are not in the position to confidently state what you wrote @ 13:
“As far as I know, the people in line didn’t have to register at the door.”
There is no way you can claim this without having been to any of the screenings.
Allen, you come across as a kind and respectable fellow and it is just a pity to have to see someone like you defend people that are not in league with your candor and goodwill and then to needlessly suffer the consequence of fiery, but rightful criticisms.
Dave @ 44, that is some damning evidence for those who still claim a RSVP system was not in place. The date reference is of particular importance. I’m going to have use this one in my response to another poster who keeps insisting that these screenings were offered to the general public.
DaveScot #43
I did not realize PZ still bothered with USENET. Don’t you think it is a little easier for PZ to deny reading USENET articles than his own blog’s comments?
William
Davidson was posting it everywhere he thought it might be seen. That just happened to be the first place I saw it. It comes up on a regular google web search – I didn’t search google groups.
DaveScot,
Keep up the good fight!
Borne 17
Whose catastrophe has Dawkins tickled recently?