Thursday, April 10, 2008

Anyone want seconds?

Guys, we arent going to have to eat for months after this. More roasted Creationist, this time from William Dembski, Megalomania-TARD:

I ve gotten to know the producers quite well. As far as I can tell, they made sure to budget for lawsuits. Also, I know for a fact that they have one of the best intellectual property attorneys in the business. I expect that the producers made their video close enough to the Harvard video to get tongues awagging (Headline: Harvard University Seeks Injunction Against Ben Stein and EXPELLED you think that might generate interest in the movie?), but different enough so that they are unexposed.
So they knew from the beginning that they were making a Frankenstein 'Inner Life.' They knew they were copying 'Inner Life', and budgeted for 'if they got caught.' They hired 'one of the best copyright lawyerz in dah biz', just in case 'they got caught.'

Sooo... This fiasco is the definition of malicious copyright infringement.

It was a nice touch on the producer s part to use the same music as the XVIVO video. Presumably they got permission from the artist is that another possible oversight to explore? But then again, one of the producers was for years in the music business. So most likely they re covered here as well.
DUDE! You stole the music too?!?!?! I didnt know that. Thanks Mega-TARD.

BOTTOM LINE: Before you think the producers of EXPELLED are idiots, you might think that they are chess players who have seen several moves ahead. For instance, have you ever thought who stood to gain the most from the Machine Video featured at UD a week ago?
Yeah, "Creationists caught stealing someone elses work. Again." isnt much of a headline, is it? Put it right next to "Dog bites man" on the front page, eh?

Your lying. Its pathologic. Seek professional help.

44 comments:

Aaron Golas said...

Yeah, I'm going to have to check on the music connection when I get home. I sure as shootin' am not going to take Dembski's word for it.

Bill said...

Chess players, eh?

Several moves ahead, eh?

So, Dembski, you're telling me that you intentionally take down your pants before you get intentionally caught?

Oh, I get it! Looking like an idiot is done on purpose. Well, dang, sure fooled me! I'll have to keep a sharper eye out, eh?

Ian said...

Ahh, the classic "I meant to do that" defense. Yes, of course, it makes so much sense.

Of course, just because Dembski repeatedly screws these things up isn't, in and of itself, evidence that the producers of Expelled will screw things up as well. Neither, of course, is it evidence that they didn't.

Roald said...

The Dover Gambit was obviously a queen sacrifice to gain positional advantage. And we don't even see it. And when they lost both rooks in other states, we fell for that again.

Their bishop is going to whoop-ass in the endgame, provided we leave the king on a white square.

What shortsighted fools we've all been!

curly said...

Yo, based on the youtubes, the music is not the same in the Harvard and creotard version. While had it been so it wouldn't have suprised me really, it seems Dembski is off base here. So unless the vides on the youtube are different that what Dembski is referencing, he just might be tone deaf.

Glend said...

BOTTOM LINE: Before you think the producers of EXPELLED are idiots, you might think that they are chess players who have seen several moves ahead. For instance, have you ever thought who stood to gain the most from the Machine Video featured at UD a week ago?

Yes, we know all about how you pretend to be ignorant morons, since you told us that was your plan. Then again, it wasn't very smart of you to tell us, Dembski, so I'm not sure if I should really be waiting around for that blinding flash of brilliance at Waterloo!!!

Anyway, you're so far ahead of us, with over 10 years of acting like complete morons, that I think it's time for you to strike. I mean, we've been convinced that you were idiots for years, hence it's time for the brilliance to appear.

Believe me, when we see anything intelligent coming from you guys we will be completely surprised and shocked. You're just that good at convincing us that you're stupid, and I stand in awe at your unwavering capacity to act and speak like you haven't a clue.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glend said...

One thing should be emphasized, I believe, which is that these people really don't know science well at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if lawyers really did check over the plagiarism to see if they could squeak by. But they'd need to know science to do it well, and believe me, Casey Luskin working hand in hand with Jonathan Wells wouldn't know science if it licked them in their lips.

That's what Dimski's missing in this, he really thinks that science is simple (oddly enough, since he invokes complexity in biology for his specious claims of ID), that any dolt like himself or Luskin could bypass the unavoidable errors in the Harvard video, while capturing the science in it.

But of course they can't, they haven't a clue about what is science and what is artistic license. Just go to any IDist presentation, watch and listen. These people really think that illustrations like the XVIVO one are depictions of the processes that are happening, rather than idealized fictions of same. I mean, Behe really thinks these are machines in organisms in the same sense that lawnmowers and their parts are machines, and that there are factories in the cells operating much like Ford factories do. The probabilistic workings of the cell (which are needed for any realistic model of probabilistic evolution) are lost on these bozos, and they think that the animation is reality.

Therefore I don't much doubt that they think they're clever, and keeping ahead in a chess match of the people who know science. But unless they actually hired some non-ID science expert, they simply haven't a clue what game they're even playing. They're calculating their tic-tac-toe moves in advance of the scientists, and think that they're gaming them, when in fact the scientists really are playing chess in a different room from children like Dembski.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

William Wallace said...

Just admit it, you're working to bring publicity for the film.

ERV, who (within the NC"S"E) tipped you off about this story, or was it the other way around?

BiochemistrySinger said...

It seems to me, more and more everyday, that some of them realized 'hey, ID doesn't make sense! It's total bull' and figured that the best way to lay it to rest would be to make a terrible movie.

Jon said...

Put it right next to "Dog bites man" on the front page, eh?

Don't you mean "Pit Bull bites man"?

I keeeed.. :P

Janine said...

Little Willie, in case you are missing it, Expelled is getting a lot of publicity on the net. I see ads for the thing on my e-mails and being placed on different blogs. It is hard to miss the image of Ben Stein dressed as Angus Young.

Abbie and the rest of your imagined PT-mafia are merely pointing out how full of lies and distortions the mockumentary is. But you are the same putz who thinks PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins tried to force their way into a showing of the film.

He was living in a different world and he was nutted by reality.

Tyler DiPietro said...

Duly added to the rolling shorters.

I really do find the response by Dembski amusing, essentially admitting that they probably broke the law with foreknowledge. I'm sure that'll work out well if this goes to court.

Ninety Nine said...

ERV, you are the smart, witty, and beautiful. In certain circles you are the most desired girl on the Internet.

Regards

Anonymous said...

ERV-

Is it just me, or does anyone else start to see an eerie link between Expelled, the Discovery Institute, Howard Ahmanson Jr, who sits on the DI board, and all the major players pushing this film, which include James Dobson, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, ARN, TBN, National Religious Broadcasters, Michael Medved, etc?

They are all heavily affiliated specifically with, and identified as proponents of Christian Dominionism.

I haven't been able to find a direct link between Ray Comfort and dominionists, but I think if you look hard enough, it will be there.

We may be underestimating those bastards. This may be a bigger push to unify and solidify their push towards, and I hate to say it, but it may be coming - an attempt for theocracy.

Am I being an unknowing conspiracy nut, or should we look into this avenue further?

James F said...

Ah Dembski, you gotta love him.

ComputerGuy said...

Tyler, I was thinking along the same lines, wouldn't submiting Dembski's blog post make things worse.

They could have thrown themselves on the mercy of the court and claimed ignorance BUT now Dembski is going to admit it was done with fore-knowledge.

Anonymous said...

BAM!

Here's another link- Stephen Meyer will be making a presentation about ID on the 19th at - The Heritage foundation. Another listed dominionist group.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev041905a.cfm

The links of this vicious chain are tightening, or am I just getting paranoid?

John the Skeptic said...

This is the same Dembski who, in outlining his famous "Vise Strategy" for the Kitzmiller trial, said:

"What I propose, then, is a strategy for interrogating the Darwinists to, as it were, squeeze the truth out of them."

Of course, that was before he ran like hell.

How'd that "Vise Strategy" work out, Billy?

Forthekids said...

"Yo, based on the youtubes, the music is not the same in the Harvard and creotard version. While had it been so it wouldn't have suprised me really, it seems Dembski is off base here."

ROTFLMAO

Man, you guys are slow...

Do I need to spell this one out for you??

dochocson said...

FtK, please, please, speak so that we may be enriched.

Bill Abendroth said...

Glend said 'I wouldn't be surprised if lawyers really did check over the plagiarism to see if they could squeak by.'

I don't know who you are Glen, or what you do--but I'm pretty sure you're not a lawyer. Unless you've retained the dumbest lawyer in the world, for a complicated intellectual property problem, the first thing a lawyer is going to do is hire some expert. Even if your potential copyright problem (as someone else mentioned earlier) is a cartoon rodent in yellow shorts, big buttons, and has a high laugh--you're going to hire a 'rodent cartoon' expert to make sure that 'Mickey Rat' is not like any other Mickey. So no lawyer would give 'Expelled' the go ahead, without some scientist or other qualified person (NOT the lawyer) giving the 'go' sign.

Generally, every time you hear someone say 'We're not worried, because we ran it by our attorneys,' rest assured there's an attorney somewhere wetting their pants and buying an umbrella policy for their malpractice insurance. And 'we budgeted for lawsuits' means they bought an insurance policy, covering their negligence...so somewhere there's an insurance agent saying 'Oh, Ef no. Not for that, you didn't....'

But as others have mentioned ahead of me--none of this really matters in the world of ID, Creationism, or even crintelligent designism. For those people, there is no such thing as a principled disagreement or a criticism that is anything other than 'You hate God, Jesus, and Baby Jesus, and you will refuse to rest until you have finished the Devil's work of deliberately sending as many people to H E Double Hockey Sticks as you can!' That's why I have reconciled myself to the fact that I will spend the rest of my natural life listening to some moron complain about the 'war' on Christmas. It's unavoidable.

Bill Abendroth

John said...

The version in the movie is the same music as the XVIVO animation, according to two people who have seen it. Said sources are certain, not "Well, maybe...".

monado said...

And I've been thinking that XVIVO has been using this time in going over the two animations carefully with their scientific experts to make sure that the Expelled version is a rip-off and not just an unfortunate coincidence, unlikely as that might be.

Jon Voisey said...

Summary: "We knew we were going to plagiarize and intentionally set aside money to pay off settlements instead of using that money to get the rights in the first place."

Yep. Intellectual honesty at it's finest.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said...

The Dover Gambit was obviously a queen sacrifice

Weeell, actually the queen didn't show up, due to an unforeseen lack of intelligently designed wedges. There was a pawn sacrifice for sure, after an omission to read the game manuals.

Now in the current Expelled game the queen side claims to be attempting an early long advancement, thinking ahead. Unfortunately as Taylor notes this will again play out en passant (in [the pawn's] passing) in the court.

Let's face it, the early promotion has forced a premature endgame that bodes ill for the Black side. No doubt the rank and file there will feel empty, but such is the fate when one makes such rookie mistakes.

Pineyman said...

Hey Little Willie -

I see you've wiped off the foam and taken your meds since you've posted at UD. Up the dosage a bit and you might be mistaken for an actual rational person.

Kb said...

What does the Explanatory Filter say?

HP?
Yes, IDist lie on a regular basis, copyright infringement in a commercial film is not unexpected.

So it's regularity not design.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said...

Dembski's forecasting record is, well, less than stellar. WATERLOO! SINGLE MALT! VISE STRATEGY!

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said...

Let's break this down:

I ve gotten to know the producers quite well.

"I'm part of a criminal conspiracy."

Also, I know for a fact that they have one of the best intellectual property attorneys in the business.

I'm sure Dembski has the finest taste in legal talent. Do you suppose its the Thomas More Law Center?

(Headline: Harvard University Seeks Injunction Against Ben Stein and EXPELLED you think that might generate interest in the movie?)

Once again, the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" position. Sorry, that would only be relevant if you were trying to make money running a circus side show. But if the Expelled! producers were trying to make money, would they be paying schools to attend screenings? And this defense simply doesn't work if your product is an intellectual position rather than a circus side show.

Remember that one of the core messages of Expelled! is that "Darwinism" leads to immoral behaviour. I don't see how immoral behaviour by the movie's backers is going to help their cause. I'm thinking of changing my line of work and inventing an irony meter with built-in overload protection. The market seems to be growing.

Glend said...

So no lawyer would give 'Expelled' the go ahead, without some scientist or other qualified person (NOT the lawyer) giving the 'go' sign.

OK, so you completely missed my points, Bill, and manufactured a straw whore for yourself. They think they have scientists at the DI, and may have used some dolt like Jonathan Wells as the "science expert." I'm sorry that my explicit mention of such facts failed to lodge in what you would call your mind.

They have in-house lawyers and "science experts," and they may be dumb enough to rely on them.

If they were smart enough to hire a non-ID expert (something I mentioned, which you ignored or didn't understand in your straw-whore design and manufacture--you're either dishonest or not too bright), then it all might be okay for them. True, I mentioned that as well, but apparently nothing much gets through to you.

But then I already said all of that before, and you completely failed to comprehend, so I don't have great hopes that this will change things.

Glen Davidson

Darren said...

This reminds me of when Vanilla Ice sampled "Under Pressure" by Queen and David Bowie, and then sat there in that interview and explained the difference between the original, and "Ice, Ice, Baby".

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said...

Taylor notes

Oops. Tyler, of course. And I was thinking of the Vise strategy, not the Wedge strategy.

Ixian said...

Wow, what will they do next. Tip over their king to lull us into a false sense of security?

By their own admission they've given all the firepower needed to take them down in court even if they didn't actually copy the Harvard animation. The admission of intentionally making it close enough to raise suspicion of copying shows A) that they were basically knowingly trying to copy it with, B) the intent to cause confusion as to the origin of the material, which shows willful and malicious copyright infringement.

No matter what the truth of their animations creation is, just by what he said, he has set them up to lose in court. This great strategy of theirs is either so amazing I can't comprehend it, or it simply doesn't exist. I'm leaning towards the second explanation, since every time in the past I haven't seen a winning strategy in someone's actions it was because there really wasn't one.

Also, as a long time lurker, first time poster I'd like to say keep up the good work ERV.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Dembski like the evil megalomaniac in a James Bond movie who monologues about how James has fallen into his evil trap and will be taken care of once and for all...

Then his evil lair blows up...

SPARC said...

In "The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design" Dembski wrote:

"when both record the same errors, it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that whoever published second plagiarized"

I wonder why he thinks this wouldn't apply for the animations in EXPELLED.
Unfortunately, he didn't reply when I put the same in the comments at UD.

Ixian said...

It seems to me SPARC that he hasn't thought out far enough in advance to have an answer for your question.

Seems like proof enough that they didn't have half a clue what they were doing when they started making their movie and doing all this.

Ric said...

And Bill Dembski shows once again that he is a liar with an IQ below 100.

Rich Hughes said...

Yes please FtK, spell it out...

curly said...

And the fun continues as David Bolinski, one of the creators of The Inner Life of the Cell chimes in:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2460,n,n

Mike said...

I imagine Dembski has already started work on an excuse to get out of testifying should it get to trial.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said...

mike: I imagine Dembski has already started work on an excuse to get out of testifying should it get to trial.

I don't think that's going to work. Dembski is guilty of pirating the very same video.

Doppelganger said...

So, where did FtK go?

windy said...

So, where did FtK go?

To the next thread, to make yet another cryptic and unsupported assertion!

Bill Abendroth said...

Jesus H. Christ (to coin a phrase), Glend--You kiss your mother with that dirty mouth?

Down boy! Dude, I was not disagreeing with what you said in any way----I was only pointing out that in my experience, any time a body says 'We ran this by our lawyers,' what they really means is 'we're praying to the cowboy buddha that you don't notice we don't have a clue.' How that creates a 'straw whore' (to coin a phrase), I don't know.

And before you bird-dog my reading comprehension, did you see that I criticized the ID/Creationist community by pointing out that any disagreement viz strategy, tactics, whatever, will be seen (by the IDers, Creationists, Mel Gibson fans, etc) purely as a Satanic attack on Baby Jesus?

What I'm saying is Creationists (as a rule) don't have scientists, lawyers, or manners (and they're apparently not the only ones).

Bill Abendroth

PS That means I think you, Glend, exhibited bad manners.