UcD: Clinton Dawkins: Guilty as Charged

... 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.

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

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.

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!

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.

I want to make something clear in case some people missed it:

The Expelled Website made a general invitation, to the public, to see the movie. To get on the admittance list you had to RSVP that you were going. You could invite guests.

Many people, at least the clowns trying to defend Mathis, seem to miss that not very subtle point. PZ Myers, along with everyone in America, was invited to that showing with the only limiting factor being seating available. Since it was an open and general invitation, PZ could not "crash" or "sneak in" the theatre.

Further, while it's been 25+ years since I've touched any kind of law book that wasn't directly related to tax, memory says that Mathis is technically in breech of contract. He made an unilateral offer. PZ Myers made an acceptance. The consideration was the bartered exchange of a free admission to the movie (monies worth) for PZ talking about the movie to generate "buzz"(ie, free word-of-mouth advertising) (monies worth). (I should note, it doesn't have to be for "money." Promises of marriage and other sorts of non-economic performances are contracts, too.)

And while I am amused about the absolutely triviality of the breech, and I would never recommend a suit as the damages are negligible (and think you'd get laughed out of court with your underwear forcibly pulled over your head because to try to enforce this is just wankery beyond belief) I only point it out as there is a fundamental dishonesty in people who breech. A lack of honor.

But then, I should expect nothing less from the "Lying for Jesus" crowd. Their entire lives are lies and honor is as foreign a concept to them as truth.

William Wallace: On Dawkin's use of his own name, Clinton, I see nothing wrong with that. Almost everything else stinks, though.

Moses: I want to make something clear in case some people missed it: The Expelled Website made a general invitation, to the public, to see the movie. To get on the admittance list you had to RSVP that you were going. You could invite guests.

I can't remember for sure if it was DaveScot, but I know that somebody over at UcD recently used Obama's middle name "which he never uses for anything else"

Don't you get tired of lame, childish comments from trolls like William Wallace and FL? I swear, they make Christianity look more and more stupid every day.

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

— William Wallace

Is it all possible some joker signed up online and used the fake name "Clinton Dawkins"? Two names that might surely rile the film producers, not actually realizing Dawkins legal first name was Clinton? It would be like someone trying to attend an evolution conference registering under the name Hovind Wells....

Someone dares not to be known by his first name?
Get J. Edgar Hoover on the case!

"If you fail once, don't give up, FAIL again." ----The cdesign proponentsist anthem.

William Wallace: On Dawkin's use of his own name, Clinton, I see nothing wrong with that. Almost everything else stinks, though.

Reginald:

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…

I tried to post there as well simply pointing out "actually in the name Clinton Richard Dawkins, Dawkins would be the surname while Clinton is the first or Christian name" There's an Evolution - Creation analogy in there somewhere about how Evolution sites allow all posts to come into evidence before evaluation while Creationist websites know what they want in advance and ban anything that doesn't support their presupposition.

George, please send me a note at karl AT inoculatedmind DOT com. We should meet up.

OT-3 notorious trolls - FaFaLarry, Willie the Wanker, and Keith EatMe are stinking up the FCS website with their "Smelly Crap" and it's pissing me off!

OOps, I forgot to put the link in case anyone wants to take a bite out of crime
http://www.flascience.org/wp/

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?

Corey: I can't remember for sure if it was DaveScot, but I know that somebody over at UcD recently used Obama's middle name "which he never uses for anything else"

13 February 2008 Speaking of Bulverism… DaveScot I’m not sure what inspired Professor Dembski to quote C.S. Lewis on Bulverism at this particular point in time but the recent and somewhat unexpected rise of Barack Hussein Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton in the democratic primaries might have been it. I predict that whatever legitimate criticism is leveled at him the Bulverians will be out in great number rejoining with “You’re only saying that because he’s black.” Mark my words. That is going to become a household phrase before November. My support, of course, will be for John McCain. I preferred McCain over Bush in 2004 and nothing has changed. I hope to see him team up with Mike Huckabee as VP. I don’t envy them the task of dealing with the inevitable Bulverism they’ll encounter if Barack Hussein Obama gets the nod from the democratic party. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a lot easier to defeat IMO with her sordid past and no race card she can pull in her defense. Heck, her and Bill are already being Bulverized. Quite successfully too.

Wow, does anyone else get the impression that that was the first time Dave had ever heard that word and just had to use it?

Even though the Clinton vs. Richard issue is a pure red herring, it is stil stupid. Despite being blessed with two given names and a middle one, contests with officialdom combined with their reliance on identification matching have caused me to almost always use my first given name whenever I think I shall have to produce proof of being myself. If the "Expelled" crowd cannot come up with a better excuse, then they should all immediately expel any of their own ilk not using their first names.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to call DaveScot what he really is, a liar and hypocrite?

It's a safe bet that DaveScot is not even that guy's real name!

William Wallace: On Dawkin's use of his own name, Clinton, I see nothing wrong with that. Almost everything else stinks, though.

Eh, don't let Willy get to you. He's just doing volunteer PR work for the DI and isn't allowed to deviate from the official line, whatever that is at any given moment.

Bruce: Someone dares not to be known by his first name? Get J. Edgar Hoover on the case!

Actually, since Dawkins never actually used his name and appeared only as guest, is it possible that there was simply another "Clinton Dawkins" in the audience and they got confused?

Davescot's assininity and the other lies from the ID crowd aside, there seems to be a discrepancy. PZ said he was allowed to bring up to three unnamed guests. My understanding is that he was there with his wife, daughter, daughter's boyfriend, and Dawkins. That's four.

David Stanton: .... 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....

Boo - Please consider that there were other atheists at the screening, and anyone of them could have signed up to bring 3 guests. Although I do not know this for certain, I'm thinking that Skatje (PZ's daughter) would have signed up on her own, and brought her boyfriend as a guest.

Perhaps Kristine, who WAS present and part of the group, could stop dancing for a minute and shed a little light on the subject.

ps: DaveScot's real name is not Asshole - It's David Scot Springer. Asshole is just what his friends call him.

There were also 3 people from the RDF in attendance: Liz, Josh, and Wayne.

It's not difficult to explain. Skatje registered under her name and asked to bring 3 guests, as did my wife. The family got in on their own registration, with room to spare for more guests.

All got confirmation emails and were allowed to attend.

Richard Dawkins was not listed by name anywhere in the registration. If you read Skatje's account at http://skatje.com/?p=381, you'll also discover that he wasn't even asked for his ID, although he was prepared to give it. They basically waved through at least the last few people (we were near the end of the line) with no questions asked.

All this nonsense about "Clinton Dawkins" is the liars for Expelled trying to invent some weak accusation of dishonesty on our part, of which there was none, and DaveScot is the kind of stupid toady who buys into it.

Thanks PZ - I guess great minds DO think alike!

I guess this means that Kristine can keep on dancing.

Interesting silogism here - cannot see why it has not been spotted. Branding free-thinkers as atheists with no respect (why should we) for fringe madness brandished as science for political reasons is no different from identifying people with yellow stars. There is a hidden agenda here, one that is no different from national-socialism, stalinism or any other cuckoo-ism. The sad fact is that ignorance, fear of facing the world as it is, and subsequent rage of not being capable limits the vision of the faithful, whatever their particular set of beliefs, ulterior motives, or even needs of solace in an ever-changing world that is crowding their ignorance. In other words: the ignorant sheep remain sheep, herded by wolves into oblivion of a very dark indeed future if they get through. They dont even realize that. So, supporting PZ's words, I will add my animal view: get nasty with sheep - its for their own good, and the health of their offspring.

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

— Oak

"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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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(TM), 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.