UcD: Clinton Dawkins: Guilty as Charged

| 74 Comments

On UcD, DaveScot ‘argues

DaveScot Wrote:

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.

Again, the argument from ignorance ‘who knew Dawkins’ first name was Clinton’ is to be expected from the ID creationists at UcD. However, there is a flaw in the ‘logic’ that suggests that Dawkins used the first name Clinton to ‘deceive’ and hide his presence.

If, as the invitation suggested, ID’s would be checked against a list, and since Dawkins was traveling with his passport, it seems reasonable that one would register using one’s legal name to avoid confusion during admission.

It seems that UcD like so many other ID creationists are in denial here.

Another question has arisen as to the source of the rumor that Dawkins used his legal first name to register online since the story, as told by PZ indicates that Dawkins was invited as one of several unnamed guests

P Z Myers says that the person registering had to give their own name, but they could also apply for a number of additional tickets for their guests, and that the names of these guests were not asked for

Dawkins himself supports this when he writes

Clinton Dawkins Wrote:

PZ took advantage of the generous offer to let him book guests in as well, and then kindly invited me to be one of them. There was no request to give the names of guests, and no machinery to do so, which was why my name did not appear on the list.

Source: Lying for Jesus? retrieved March 26, 2008

The NY Times similarly reports that

In an interview, Dr. Myers said he registered himself and “guests” on a Web site for the film’s screening. A security guard pulled him out of the line but admitted his wife, daughter and guests — including Dr. Dawkins, who, Dr. Myers said, no one seemed to recognize. Dr. Dawkins, who like everyone was asked to present identification, said he offered his British passport, which lists him as Clinton Richard Dawkins.

So what is the source for DaveScots ill informed claims?

DaveScot Wrote:

Well, there is no longer any doubt. Richard Dawkins registered for the screening as “Clinton” Dawkins.

“Premise Media” released a press release which even further muddles these issues:

They were also aware that Dawkins, who oddly used his formal surname “Clinton” instead of Richard to sign up, was in attendance.

As PZ points out

PZ Wrote:

No, this is not at all true. Richard Dawkins was in attendance as my unnamed guest; the reservation form had asked for my name and affiliation, and only asked how many (up to three) guests I would be bringing with me. There was no public announcement anywhere that he would be attending. Also, although he was prepared to show his passport, he wasn’t asked for it at the door.

Also, what kind of illiterate is writing this press release? Dawkins surname is Dawkins. Slow down, bozos, you’re in such a frantic hurry you haven’t even bothered to proofread.

And the fumbling continues…

PS: I have added a trackback to Davescot’s posting, let’s see if it gets expelled as well.

74 Comments

… um, you have to have your full legal name on your passport. At least you do in the US, and there’s every reason why the UK would also require this.

You had to show ID to get into the screening.

If you’re visiting another country, it’s customary to use your passport for ID.

Richard Dawkins’ photo is also all over the net, bookstore displays, etc.

And … “surname?” Oh, well, at least they didn’t call his first name his “Christian name!”

Assclowns.

It’s obvious that Dave Scott (Springer), who is best known for his fanboy-posing-as-a-credible-three-star-Amazon.com review of Dembski and Wells’ latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography (I am referring of course to “The Design of Life”) didn’t read New York Times Science Editor Cornelia Dean’s article on last week’s “expulsion”, in which she noted that Dawkins had shown his British passport, which lists him as “Clinton Richard Dawkins”. Merely proves two points about Mr. Dave Scott and his “exemplary” reading comprehension:

1) He doesn’t have any reading comprehension, so it’s a wonder if he ever passed his SATs.

2) He is merely demonstrating that he is yet another intellectually-impaired Discovery Institute IDiot Borg drone posting at Uncommon Dissent.

Cheers,

John

Julie - you have to have your full name in your UK passport too. Her Majesty requires it.

All the continued bull doesn’t dismiss the very real fact that they threw a guy out of a movie who they themselves had used in the movie and was credited as I understand it.

Their argument that the creationists are being systematically harassed and denied to be heard are now turned entirely on their heads, and at a movie meant to highlight the very negative treatment they are dishing out. Sweeeeeeeeeeet.

It’s like Clinton’s Bosnia meltdown. Never ending.

Enjoy.

Still don’t understand why either PZ or “Clinton” being there was such a threat. What are they trying to hide? Why “expell” someone from seeing the supposed truth about others supposedly expelled? They remind me of cockroaches scampering undercover when a light is turned on them.

Looks like the ID crowd has successfully diverted attention away from their faux pas in denying entry to PZ.

It’s “DaveScot”, not “DaveScott”, bozo!

Apparently the braniacs at UcD don’t know what “surname” means.

I love it that DaveScot’s arguments make no sense even if the factual assertions were true (which, as this article shows, they are not).

The point is that Mark Mathis spotted and “expelled” PZ Myers from the audience while letting Richard Dawkins – the world’s most famous atheist, and a guy to whom Mark Mathis himself applied makeup! – stroll on in to the theater unmolested.

It doesn’t matter whether Dawkins registered as “Clinton Richard Dawkins” or “Ivana Tinkle” – if you can’t spot the guy *IN YOUR OWN MOVIE* in the lineup, then you’re an idiot. Double idiot points if the guy in your own movie happens to be the most famous person in the room.

Andre Wrote:

It doesn’t matter whether Dawkins registered as “Clinton Richard Dawkins” or “Ivana Tinkle” – if you can’t spot the guy *IN YOUR OWN MOVIE* in the lineup, then you’re an idiot. Double idiot points if the guy in your own movie happens to be the most famous person in the room.

ROFLMAO! Nicely put, Andre.

Of course PZ’s version is true. I registered for the screening in Milwaukee, WI. I registered unnamed guests as well. I am not sure who will attend with me even at this time.

Andre, perfectly put!

DaveScot blindly believes every piece of shit doled out by the Disco Toot frauds. Dolt.

Registering for the event using a first name which he never uses for anything else is about as red-handed as you can get.

Who says things like this anyway? Doesn’t he mean underhanded? And in the end, isn’t it only right that a person who was interviewed for the movie be allowed to see how he is portrayed misrepresented. DaveScot and this Mathis fellow certainly provide a fine example of the integrity and fairplay displayed by the cdesign propronentsists.

Ok, this comment on the UD thread is genius:

“Security procedures at these events apparently need beefing up. In fact, for similar future events, why not keep a set of photos with all the usual suspects’ mug shots at the registration table.

Better yet, since such individuals are likely to be in disguise, and since Darwinism has led to such incredible advances in biology and related technology, we will simply set up a monitoring device that will beep wildly when PZ, Dawkins, or others of the same ilk attempt entry in disguise. The device will operate by scanning the brains (since this is now possible) of such individuals, searching for extremely vitriolic thoughts for ID, God or anything divine, and design in general, except the design associated with their investment portfolios as their atheist books’ sales go through the atmosphere.

Or, rather than beeping, perhaps the device will begin flashing photos of Charles Darwin on the screen. Or better yet, the classic series of figures depicting early primates evolving to human beings. This is sure to get the ID crowd on its feet, frantically scanning for the imposters!!”

It doesn’t even matter if it’s from an actual ID supporter or not. Either way, it still kicks ass.

Is it still possible to register for the Milwaukee showing?

I see no trackback at UD. What up?

The thread on UD is fairly annoying. Most of the ID’ers are conveniently forgetting the fact that a “private” screening where anybody can invite themselves is not really all that “private”. It’s devolved into, “Were you there?” and, “Show me the evidence.” queries. And DaveScot thinks repeating, “You’re in denial.” makes it true. Clap harder!

They prefer not to have any exposure to reality.

Mr_Christopher:

I see no trackback at UD. What up?

Thomas S. Howard: I took that brain scan posting as cool satire from a pro-science poster. Other’s thoughts?

Also, I’ve been noticing something on UD lately. DaveScot posts something even more stupid then usual. Hard to imagaine I know, but he’s achieved it. Then, even on his own turf, where he’s a despot, people just shred his positon on the facts. They don’t get banned or their threads removed. I keep on expecting to see a “J. Doe is no longer with us.” quote and don’t.

Is this because so many people are posting against his position that he can’t ban all of them or else there won’t be a blog? Is he finally admiting a bit of defeat? Does he live in his own reality to the extent that he doesn’t care what anyone else posts? Other posibilities?

I do think that it’s a sign that whatever relevance UD had (none) is somehow finding negative territory.

Any one else’s opinons?

Brian

Brain: yeah, I got tricked. Still, stuff like that is spinal-reflex-par-for-the-course with design worshippers and the other members of the creation clade.

Son of a bitch, I thought I was on another thread here at PT. Still, the comment actually might apply without needing any modification. Damn you Firefox and your many tabs!

hmm - Florida’s antievolution bill has passed its first hurdle:

http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=516#comments

i don’t know why we need identification. they can just look at the scarlett “A”s tatooed on our asses to know we’re atheists. Maybe they want us to wear little “A”s on the front of our clothing so they can more easily recognize us. We do have the habit of hiding in plain sight.

Considering that PZ used his real name and got kicked out, should they really make a stink if (hypothetically) someone did use a fake name? Basically, DaveScott’s complaint is that they didn’t get a chance to kick Dawkins out too. Is that really an argument he wants to be making at this point?

Dave will apparently make any argument at all for no reason whatsoever.

Dave Scot is preaching about RSVP? This from the little man who threatened to hack this site because he could. That Dave Scot? Pitiful.

Anytime you see the name “Clinton”, you know trouble’s a-brewin’ somewhere.

FL :)

I tried to post a comment on UD about this, but as usual it was rejected.

Is DaveScot really this utterly dense? Doesn’t he know anybody who has a different legal name from the one commonly used in every day life? And, as an ex-pat Brit myself, prior to obtaining an American driver’s license, I always used my British passport for ID. And as somebody pointed out above, if somebody is checking your name against your passport, it must obviously match.

DaveScot, former Computer Muckity-muck Scientist - it really isn’t that hard to figure out you know.

Of course the ultimate irony here is that this blithering nonsense comes from somebody who does not use his real name…

Whatever the ‘truth’ of the invitation/RSVP issue, no one, especially Dave Scott, has wondered why if PZ is excluded for ‘not being invited’ his guests were still allowed in. They were even less ‘invited’. As reported elsewhere, a bit of unChristian spite by Mathis seems far more likely.

Not so much expelled as excommunicated.

On Dawkin’s use of his own name, Clinton, I see nothing wrong with that.

Almost everything else stinks, though.

Oak Wrote:

I will add my animal view: get nasty with sheep - its for their own good, and the health of their offspring

Four legs good. Two legs bad.

“If, as the invitation suggested, ID’s would be checked against a list, and since Dawkins was traveling with his passport, it seems reasonable that one would register using one’s legal name to avoid confusion during admission.”

Or his credit card. If you commonly use your middle name, rather than your first to register or whatever, you frequently end up in meetings inviting people to use your common middle name.

This use of middle names is very common in middle class English families, and I believe is also a bit of an affectation amongst Ivy League US families.

Sorry I got this the wrong way round:

“If you commonly use your middle name, rather than your first to register or whatever”

should read

“If you commonly use your middle name, but register with a credit card you end up nominating your first name, and then have to invite people to use your middle name” Happens all the time.

JM:

This use of middle names is very common in middle class English families, and I believe is also a bit of an affectation amongst Ivy League US families.

I’m not sure how that would be an “affectation.” As a college professor (although not at an Ivy) I can relate that it’s not at all uncommon for my students go by their middle names. As far as I can tell it’s just because they like it better, although in a few cases it’s because a student is a “Jr.” and goes by his middle name to distinguish himself from his father. My dad hated his given names (one of them was Elmer, so who can blame him), so he always went by his initials, a fairly common practice in the south where I grew up.

DaveScot’s accusation is absurd. There is a surfeit of legitimate criticisms one can advance against Dawkins; there is no need to contrive criticism.

You’ve also got to remember, they’re lying about him using an alias, both in the sense that he didn’t use it (attended as an unnamed guest to someone who signed up using their website but still got thrown out, apparently for pure spite (though they keep changing the story)), and in the sense that it isn’t an alias (it is in fact his legal name). And while lying, they insist there’s some nefarious dishonesty in Dawkins supposedly using his real name to get into a movie devoted to falsely blaming scientists for the Holocaust.

They’re projecting through dozens of prisms and bouncing it off a funhouse mirror! These people are not only stupid and immoral, but totally batshit fucking insane!

But hey, it’s not really lying if you’re Lying For Jesus™!

David Stanton:

Now let’s see if I’ve got this straight. The producers lied to Dawkins about the name of the film to obtain his participation under false pretenses. Dawkins used his real name to attend a free screening of the film through normal channels. And they are the ones who are claiming that Dawkins was in the wrong! It doesn’t get any better than that.

If anyone ever asks me if these clowns are immoral or just plain stupid, this is all the evidence anyone could ever ask for to justify the response: BOTH. They don’t even seem to see the hypocricy of their duplicity.

What a bunch of whining ninnies. Man, what if he had used the name Richard Dawkins. Would they have refused to let him in because Richard was not really his first name as anyone could plainly see from looking at his passport? Why did he use any name at all? Why not just come as a “guest” like the wife and kids? He gave them every chance to expel him if they wanted to and they didn’t.

And why in the world would they want to expel anyone anyway? Just to prove that they are the real censors? What are they afraid of? Why not advertize the fact that the famous Clinton (AKA Richard) Dawkins came to see the film? Why not invite him to come specifically? Why cry that he got in through normal channels using his real name? Why do exactly the wrong thing at every opportunity and then blame everyone else?

So, Dawkins never did anything wrong at all. He never even used any name, first, last or middle. They let him in anyway. Then someone made up this ridiculous story and it was repeated without confirmation. There is no evidence, no smoking gun and no foul play. What a bunch of morons. Man, if they were going to make stuff up, why not make up something better than “the bastard used his real name”.

Compare this to the way that real scientists operate. We always demand evidence before accepting anything. PZ claimed that he registered on-line. He was asked for the website and he produced it. PZ claimed that he got a confirmation of his invitation by E-mail, he was asked to produce it and he did. Now, where is the list with the name Clinton Dawkins? Where is his verified signature? Where is the evidence for these claims?

Is it just me, or do these yahoos never have any evidence for any claim, no matter how trivial or innane? Is it just me, or is their standarad operating procedure to just make things up and try to fool people? Is it just me, or should we expect nothing different from this movie?

So Clinton Dawkins like Terence McQueen is better known by his middle name? Interesting!

David Stanton: Is it just me, or do these yahoos never have any evidence for any claim, no matter how trivial or innane? Is it just me, or is their standarad operating procedure to just make things up and try to fool people? Is it just me, or should we expect nothing different from this movie?

The behavior of scientists and the creationists evolved under different selection pressures.

Let me mention the first trivial example that pops into my mind. Jared Diamond noticed that the names for birds assigned by the New Guinea tribal people matched almost one for one with the standard genus-species names given by modern biologists under Linnaean taxonomy. Another group working in meso-America tested the animal naming conventions in their region. Published a study contradicting Diamond observation. This is as obscure as it gets. Except for about 100 people in the world others might not have even noticed this study/paper. Two years later the second group retracted their paper and explained that they had misunderstood the tribal naming conventions. Looks like the tribes had their own genus level names as well as species level names. Why did they retract it and stand up and proclaimed to the world they were wrong? Because that is the standard the scientists expect from one another. Essentially the scientists’ credo is, “dont make mistakes, but if you do, be the one to correct it”. That is why scientists make highly qualified statements, they never say never, make sure the listener understands all the assumptions and provisos made before he/she makes an assertion.

Compare it to the way creationists and other theo-politicos operate. These guys already have the trust of their flock. They call their own followers sheep as a badge! The flock does not demand proofs they dont demand evidence. The flock wants to feel good, wants it beliefs affirmed, its dogma pronounced good. Leadership of this movement evolved with absolutely no selection advantage to being truthful, producing evidence. There is a negative selection for making bland but strictly true statements. So their leadership will be the likes of Wells, Dembski, Davescot …

We may never be able to persuade the creationists and theocons the value of demanding truth and honesty from their leadership. The best we can hope for is to expose their shady standards to the rest of the world, so that their irrationality does not spill over into school boards and local government.

Remember too that Clinton Richard Dawkins father was named Clinton John Dawkins so it’s not surprising he’s gone by his middle name most of his life. I have to admit though a wonderful fantasy image of Clint Dawkins pointing a microscope at Mr Mathis and saying “Do you feel lucky today?” I’m also entertaining possible lists of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ‘cause we already know who has A Fistful of Dollars.

Sorry, I’ll stop now.

[Spock; \:-| ] “Fascinating.” [\Spock; :-)]

Don’t you get tired of lame, childish comments from trolls like William Wallace and FL?

Actually I sat up and took notice for once, because one commenter was actually making a joke and the other admitted to a verifiable fact (well, as verifiable as several witnesses can make it).

Both actions suggest that there still is some touch with reality in there, against what previous behavior tells the wobbosphere.

Even the infamous ROB of stupid one-liners produces a semblance of constructive rationality.

I suspect a creationist conspiracy - they may be throwing us off track by offering sensible leads.

[Uh, no, actually I think they are shocked into an alternate state. This is creationists when not imbibing all their church wine. Imagine the hangover!]

3 notorious trolls - FaFaLarry, Willie the Wanker, and Keith EatMe are stinking up the FCS website

Oh, I believe I have noticed a substantial increase in creationist trolling. I assume it is a desperate attempt to deflect their own fear and desperation, and to divert interest from The Great Expelling.

As noted by Greg it is working at least within their own group - and it can explain why DS doesn’t ban dissenters this time. DaveTurd may be throwing himself on the grenade, which IIRC he has claimed is among his tactics.

I attended that screening and was the one to sign up myself and “guest.” The only time that my “guest” was required to give his name what when we were handed, while in line, pens and “agreement forms” stating that we understood that videotaping this film was a “felony offense punishable by a $250,000 and up to 5 years in prison,” blah blah. (Mark Mathis then read a “warning” to us before the screening repeating this information, and other information about working with the FBI, etc.)

Strangely enough, these “agreement forms” did not have a place for your signature - it asked you to print your name, e-mail address, and snail mail address, which I was not going to give them. I and my guest gave our names and e-mails, and that’s it. I think these were promotional forms, so that we could be contacted later to help spread Expelled to the world. I’ve been checking my e-mail but so far, I have not received any follow-up.

Kristine - If you have NOT received the email from their Marketing Group about the Glow In The Dark Designer™, it is just an oversight, and it will be taken care of shortly, I am sure.

MTS:

JM:

This use of middle names is very common in middle class English families, and I believe is also a bit of an affectation amongst Ivy League US families.

I’m not sure how that would be an “affectation.” As a college professor (although not at an Ivy) I can relate that it’s not at all uncommon for my students go by their middle names. As far as I can tell it’s just because they like it better, although in a few cases it’s because a student is a “Jr.” and goes by his middle name to distinguish himself from his father. My dad hated his given names (one of them was Elmer, so who can blame him), so he always went by his initials, a fairly common practice in the south where I grew up.

You mean like the first author to write inter*stellar* science fiction, E. E. “Doc” Smith? The first and middle names were Edward Elmer and he really did have a PhD.

(The work in question was _The Skylark of Space_, first published in 1928, but actually written several years earlier. Smith himself was used as a character in some of Randall Garrett’s “Lord D’Arcy” stories as “Sir Edward Elmer, ThD” for reasons that would be obvious to any reader of Doc Smith’s rather better known “Lensman” series.)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on March 26, 2008 12:32 PM.

The Economist: Where angels no longer fear to tread was the previous entry in this blog.

Taking Behe at his word is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter