Clinton Dawkins: Guilty as Charged

_{March 26, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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.

Comments

Allen_MacNeill #13: The list of forthcoming advance screenings of the film, some of the procedures for registering, and the list of dates (all of which are now listed as “TBA” and “Waiting List”. BTW, the term “redacted” means essentially “edited, following changed interpretation”. And does not Cornell similarly "redact" upcoming course schedules and enrollments as classes are filled and/or reopened or rescheduled? Does not Cornell similarly "redact" enrollment procedures from time to time?Charles_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

MacNeill @ 12: "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." And where can we find proof of this that Mathis did in fact say these things?JPCollado_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill #12: 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. But the screenings to which Myers RSVP'd are clearly labeled "Private" and the link was not published, not on the website. Do you dispute this? Here is the Google cached RSVP private screenings page again as it looked on or about March 20th. Note the " MN AMC Mall of America 14" entry midpage and the clear designation of Private at the top of the page. 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. Uninvited. He registered for a "Private" screening to which he was not invited. Were any publicly stated rules broken by anyone, regardless of which side they were on? So, is it your position that "Private" by invitation needs to be explained as a "rule", to university biology professors, noless? Is that the standard you wish applied to any private parties you might host?Charles_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Personally, I think Dawkins and Meyers to be fat headed hypocrites of the worst kind and unable to reason coherently on anything. Whatever they intended to do, wished, imagined or did is nothing we would not have expected. Both of them need a thorough thrashing by the media. But this is starting to look like a TPT thread of bitching and whining over the real facts. So I think maybe we should can it. We all know those 2 fustilarian prigs are guilty just by their presence there. ;-)Borne_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

MacNeill @ 13: "I was asked: “What, precisely, has been “redacted”, please?” The list of forthcoming advance screenings of the film, some of the procedures for registering, and the list of dates (all of which are now listed as “TBA” and “Waiting List”." And are you saying/implying that this is an isolated case, oftentimes not seen with other movie productions? Have you made comparisons with other exhibitions of similar significance and controversy?JPCollado_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

This looks like a fuss about nothing. It's not unusual for Brits in the States to use their first name when signing up for something because the passport gives their full name - and when you have to go through US Immigration, you have to put your name EXACTLY as written on the passport. Believe me, my family has been through this - my wife was pulled over at the entry airport because she hadn't put her name quite as it appeared on the passport (her first name is not what she is usually called by). After that kind of episode, you take great care when giving your name. That includes giving ALL forenames where asked, but where there is only space for one forename you give the first one as stated in the passport. I would have done exactly what Dawkins did and so would my wife (using our names, that is, not Dawkins!).Clarence_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

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!!Ekstasis_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

MacNeill @ 12: "As far as I know, the people in line didn’t have to register at the door." Mr.MacNeill, did you go to any of these screenings?JPCollado_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

I was asked: “What, precisely, has been “redacted”, please?” The list of forthcoming advance screenings of the film, some of the procedures for registering, and the list of dates (all of which are now listed as "TBA" and "Waiting List". BTW, the term "redacted" means essentially "edited, following changed interpretation".Allen_MacNeill_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

As far as I know, the people in line didn't have to register at the door. Indeed, that was the whole point in having an online registration system. Those who had registered online had to show ID to match the names on the list, generated from the online reservation system. However, their guests were simply admitted after showing ID, which in Dr. Dawkins' case consisted of his passport, which listed his full legal name. So, here is the scenario, as verified in multiple locations online (including this website): 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. 2) There is also an option to bring up to three guests, with no mention of having to register them or bring ID. 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. 4) However, upon reaching the theatre, he is asked to leave and complies peacefully with the request. 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. 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. 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. Some questions: Were any laws broken by anyone, regardless of which side they were on? Were any publicly stated rules broken by anyone, regardless of which side they were on? If the answer to the foregoing is "no", then this is clearly and simply a matter of difference of opinion about the propriety of what happened. Under such circumstances, who comes off as having committed anything but childish and petty insults in this scenario?Allen_MacNeill_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Charles @ 8; "What, precisely, has been “redacted”, please?" Yes, I also want to know, Mr. MacNeill. Now the producers can't even change or edit their website's content without some allegation of questionable charges being thrown their way? It is only natural to expect these changes to occur given the demands and highlights the movie has received.JPCollado_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Dave: "How many of you knew Dawkins’ first name was Clinton?" First one for me. Now I wonder why didn't he use this name in his books instead? MacNeill: "it’s not clear at the RSVP website (now heavily redacted) that guests were even required to show ID" The ID issue was brought up by Mr/Ms. ck1.JPCollado_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill: the RSVP website (now heavily redacted) What, precisely, has been "redacted", please? Dawkin’s passport has his legal name – Clinton Richard Dawkins – and so that was the name presented at the door. But he in fact excised the "Richard" portion from his registration, did he not? Why, when one is commonly known as "Richard Dawkins" would one not sign in as "Richard Dawkins" or (if one was concerned about their ID matching their registration) more fully as "C. Richard Dawkins" or "Clinton Richard Dawkins"? Do you not see an inconsistency in substituting an uncommonly known first name for a commonly known middle name?Charles_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

I imagine the ID sorts want to clear the air about what has become a ridiculously (and probably Expelled-benefiting) issue. Personally, I'm getting a kick out of the fuss. Even if the worst (and, according to DaveScot's post, untrue) allegation is correct - the invitations were utterly open to the public, and PZ Myers was told to leave - I'm having a hard time entertaining the idea that it would be an incident of note. But oh well. Hell hath no fury like a blogger who feels dissed.nullasalus_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

I can easily understand wanting to whip up on PZ and company given the relentless chain of crap they spew. I personally think they are vial and vacant humans. But really, what does this have to do with the fact that there are protozoa with the toolkit for building metazoan organisms? We have to beat them at the science, no?Upright BiPed_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Registration of guests was required at the door, Allen. You're in denial.DaveScot_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

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. He says he registered as himself, and that Dawkins and his (Myers's) family were his (un-named) guests. This would imply no express duplicity on Dawkins's part.duncan_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

DaveScot wrote: "Richard Dawkins registered for the screening as “Clinton” Dawkins." No, he didn't. Guests were not required to register at all. Indeed, it's not clear at the RSVP website (now heavily redacted) that guests were even required to show ID. Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly, Dawkin's passport has his legal name – Clinton Richard Dawkins – and so that was the name presented at the door. So, every single assertion you made in this post is in error.Allen_MacNeill_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

ck1 Dawkins' passport reads Clinton Richard Dawkins. He goes by Richard. You're in denial.DaveScot_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Those who registered for these screenings (like me) were instructed to bring ID. If Dawkins' legal first name is Clinton (as he says it is) and this is the name that appears on his passport or other ID, then doesn't it make sense he use the name that would match his ID?ck1_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply