Substantiate your assertion, PZ
March 23, 2008 – 10:54 pm by William WallacePZ Myers claims in a video discussion between him and his bobblehead Richard Dawkins that “just about everybody” was gate-crashing the private screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in Bloomington’s Mall Of America.(ThinkHA 3-21-2008)
To this extraordinary assertion, I have one request: Prove it, PZ!
The private screening was set up to create buzz about the film. Paul Lauer, the CEO of Motive Entertainment, sent out emails to various organizations and churches in Minnesota inviting them to the private screening.(Lauer 3-11-2008) Invitees were allowed to register and bring guests. PZ has effectively accused most of the persons registering on the RSVP web page of not being invitees.
I challenge PZ Myers to produce his invitation, or evidence that “just about everybody” was gate-crashing.
Sources
- ThinkHA (3-21-2008) Richard Dawkins PZ Myers on being expelled from Expelled YouTube
- Lauer, Paul (3-11-2008) Letter to Christian Preacher of the Gospel of Christ
Gaining traction:
- (03-24-2008) Dawkins, Myers, and what R.S.V.P. mean by DaveScot at UncommonDescent
82 Responses to “Substantiate your assertion, PZ”
The following transcript from the Richard Dawkins/PZ Myers YouTube video:
The “mechanism” was an RSVP system. According to Merriam-Websters, to RSVP is “to respond to an invitation”.
By William Wallace on Mar 23, 2008
And, some excerpts from a real invitation to this private screening:
By William Wallace on Mar 23, 2008
William:
Thank you VERY much for so clearly explaining the Expelled private screening invite M. O.
Clare Wilson Parr
By Clare Wilson Parr on Mar 23, 2008
Strangely enough the Expelled website used the same RSVP system for their Expelled Tour, where everyone was ‘invited’ to RSVP, even though few may have actually received an invitation.
Perhaps the intention was to keep the invitation ‘private’ but at the website there was no clear indications that one was ‘private’ and the other one ‘public’.
Indeed, everyone used the same system. To claim that PZ ‘gate crashed’ would accuse all those who attended these showings as well as the showings during the tour to be ‘gate crashers’. How many of these other people were checked to see if they had an invitation? I have heard some people mention that they attended because their pastor could not attend and had suggested they would attend. Can invitations be transfered?
For instance this link links via “See tour dates” to the RSVP page, but no invitations were needed, just click the RSVP link to let them know you would be attending and you were sent an email and your name would be on a list.
Seems Expelled was just sloppy in its use of the RSVP system
Some other examples
http://rsvp.foxsearchlight.com/RSVPSystem/screenings.php?MoviesId=55
By PvM on Mar 24, 2008
My pleasure, Clare Wilson Parr.
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
Um…you can google “expelled RSVP” and you’ll find the website, so it’s clearly a public RSVP system that is not invitation-only. This is done for promotional reasons for other films as well, so it didn’t require a hack. Get your facts straight.
By xcdesignproponentsists on Mar 24, 2008
Whooooosh!
By LL on Mar 24, 2008
The whole thing depends on (a) how they got the link to the website RSVP system, and (b) what the website said. Until we know those two information items, we cannot know the status of the claims of either PZ/Dawkins or Expelled. If the link was only sent to certain people, then it is possible that PZ knew that he shouldn’t have access to it (and, interestingly, that would technically be a DMCA violation as well). However, if it was publicly linked from a public website, then it depends on what it said. If it said that it was only for invitation recipients, then again, PZ would have been part of a willful attempt to subvert the system. Also, it depends on what the confirmation email said. Did it say that it confirmed that his request was sent and they would get back to him, or did it confirm actual seating at the movie?
These questions seem simple enough for the producer to answer, if he wanted to. I’m surprised that he hasn’t come out with the mechanism of the RSVP system and the verbiage it used.
It could also be that it was simply a misunderstanding - that the director thought that the RSVP system had language that it didn’t have (and therefore would expect PZ to not RSVP), and that PZ innocently filled out an RSVP that he should not have had access to, but didn’t know it.
Jon
By Jonathan Bartlett on Mar 24, 2008
Jonathan Bartlett,
It is interesting to note that a person who goes by the name Glen Davidson acknowledged that he found the RSVP site and disseminated it at various evolutionist blogs, including PZ’s blog Pharyngula:
It seems to me the onus is on PZ to substantiate his claims.
Source:
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
“You should know that I invited Michael shermer to a screening at NRB in Nashville. He came and is writing a review for scientific American. I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more.”
-Mark Mathis
By Jeffery Keown on Mar 24, 2008
Jeffery Koewn,
Thanks for the additional evidence that PZ attempted to gate crash as an uninvited RSVPer!
What is it with the evolanders? Do they think they have a right to attend a private screening for free just because some film critics and preachers were invited to attend for free?
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
William Wallace:
It seems that you are willfully misunderstanding the issue. It also seems that the Expelled website unintentionally misnamed their system for acquiring tickets to advance screenings. Here is the process: one fills out this form, then one shows up at the location with ID, at the door ID is shown and matched with names on a list. Of course, as the page says, recording devices are not allowed and PZ was not thrown out of the screening for that reason, as no reason was even given.
I am not familiar with the anti-evolution community, but this seems like you are intentionally not understanding the situation. The “invitation” was simply an online form one fills out which gets one’s name on a list to see the movie. Technically “RSVPing” would be this process, even though there were no invitations in the first place. Perhaps the producers sent out invites to schools and churches, but those were not the only organizations limited to the screenings, as the form shows.
I signed up just to see what the site would say once I was finished and this is what it says. I can also post a copy of the confirmation e-mail. It says that one seat is reserved, but here is some of the text.
This is a confirmation of your RSVP for the free “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” movie screening. Venue information is below.
Theater: Calvary Chapel of Philadelphia
Calvary Performing Arts Center, 13500 Philmont Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19116
Date: March 28
Time: 9:30 AM
Number of seats reserved: 1
YOUR NAME WILL BE ON A LIST AT THE DOOR. NO TICKET IS NEEDED. IDs WILL BE CHECKED.
NO BAGS, CELL PHONES OR RECORDING DEVICES WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE THEATER. PLEASE LEAVE THEM IN YOUR CAR.
By zoltan on Mar 24, 2008
Zoltan,
Here is the process for the Mall of America screening:
1. You receive an invitation.(Lauer 3-11-2008)
2. You respond to the invitation by RSVPing.
3. You get an automated confirmation email.
Where is PZ’s invitation? I know of at least one other at the private screening at the Mall of America was invited. Was PZ? PZ made the extraordinary claim that “just about everybody” who responded to the RSVP page for the mall of America private screening was not invited first. The onus is on him to substantiate that claim.
Considering that Glen Davidson has already admitted sharing his discovery of the RSVP page at two blogs where PZ participates, it seems much more likely that PZ simply jumped in at step 2, even though he was not invited.
This is gate crashing.
He needs to either demonstrate he was invited, or that “just about everybody” who used the RSVP page for this event was also not invited.
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
William:
The point is, that was the process for the all the advance screenings on the website. Here is the cached version of the RSVP form for the Mall of America screening. It is not invitation-only. I’m sure there were some invitations sent out to organizations, but individuals were allowed to sign up via the website, just like the PA screening I linked in my first post.
What I don’t get is how I went through the entire process of signing up as an individual, was confirmed on the site and sent a confirmation e-mail, and yet you still think an invitation is necessary. Do you think the screening for the Mall of America was somehow different in this regard? What do you say to the fact that I could sign up and be confirmed without an invitation, yet PZ, or other Minnesotans, could not?
By zoltan on Mar 24, 2008
Zolton,
The confirmation was an automated process, and PZ made the claim that “just about everybody” was a gate crasher.
The event was paid for by a private party, and they were paying for the event in order to promote their film. Why do you think they would want to (or worse, should be forced to) pay for PZ’s ticket?
By your logic, I should be able to game PZ Myers’ RSVP system if or when one of his children is married. Fortunately, I am not a wedding crasher, and I doubt PZ will insist that I be invited.
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
What PZ means is that since the “RSVP” process was required for individuals who did not receive invitations (I’m assuming here that some organizations like churches and schools did receive invitations, however, I have already clarified that they were not necessary for individuals to get in) anyone who used that process was a “gate-crasher”. Meaning that if they were going to label PZ as a “gate-crasher” for using that process, then anyone else using that process was a “gate-crasher” as well. This is simply preposterous, as the people who used that process and got in were not denied admission, with the exception of PZ.
Yes, the event was paid for by a private party, but that is not what is being argued. Sure, they had every right to throw PZ out, or anyone who might have held different beliefs than their own. Perhaps if there had been people there with visibly different religious/philosophical beliefs: man in a turban or traditional Hasidic garb, woman in a hijab, teenager with a t-shirt, they would have had every right to throw them out as well. A private establishment has the right to do so (and ultimately it is up to the establishment). No one is arguing this.
What people are in more of an uproar about is that PZ was thrown out for no reason, then lies were circulated around the internet to discredit that. Imagine if someone of other belief than that of the movie producer Mark Mathis–who ordered PZ be thrown out–were booted. There would probably be even greater uproar about it. No one really cares that is the private establishment’s right and no one is challenging that. It’s more the hypocrisy and blatant dishonesty in covering up that hypocrisy that a lot of people have a problem with.
And to your last assertion, it is not PZ Myer’s RSVP system, it is this company’s RSVP system. Expelled people chose it, PZ Myers and the other individuals who went to see the movie followed it. Obviously, you will choose a different method if or when his children plan their weddings. I think you are again intentionally misunderstanding that there are two different ways of invites and RSVP that are being used in these examples. PZ followed the Expelled website’s protocol and was kicked out for other reasons than that he “wasn’t invited”.
I sincerely don’t understand what you are missing. This is the way the Expelled people set it up, PZ Myers followed it. What is it that you don’t understand?
By zoltan on Mar 24, 2008
From The EXPELLED site:
So there was, in fact, a sort of universal “invitation” that would have included PZ.
By Justin on Mar 24, 2008
Nice try, William Wallace, but the facts speak for themselves. PZ Myers was banned from the theater in question because of a personal grudge. Richard Dawkins was not because he was overlooked at the entrance by that same idiot who was fixated on Myers. And the promoters of the Expelled movie got the whole concept of “RSVP” wrong on their own website, thus demonstrating their ignorance. Now, GET OVER IT!
By Dale Husband on Mar 24, 2008
William, here is a list of all the screenings. Tour dates and special screenings are included. All are listed under the RSVP system, see the actual address, it is preceded by rsvp.getexpelled.com. Both Ruloff and Mathis are in obvious disagreement with the website’s methods. Which is more right? Especially since everyone else who used the website was allowed entrance with the exception of PZ? Both of these men say PZ wasn’t invited, but there was no system of invitation either, it was merely a sign up and go deal. No one individual was invited, William. Do you concede the point that invitations were not necessary? You are just dodging the evidence I’ve given you it seems. You are taking the words of people who are clearly contradicting their own method of admission to the movie.
By zoltan on Mar 24, 2008
This is false. See comment 571. Invitations were sent out, and responded to using the RSVP system.
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
You’re right, I was wrong about that. Unfortunately, one small quibble doesn’t make your argument. While there were invitations to organizations and individuals, the RSVP system allowed for anyone to sign up. What do you say to that? I don’t understand why you’re avoiding all my proof as I signed up myself without a hassle, yet you’re still ignoring that PZ was in the right in this situation. He followed the directions of the Expelled producers/planners. He was kicked out for reasons other than that. I signed up and received a confirmation. He did the same. Where is the disconnect here that you do not understand?
By zoltan on Mar 24, 2008
zoltan,
I appreciate your admission.
I think DaveScot probably hit the nail on the head:
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
William,
Hilarious! I have just got myself invited for the “movie” and here you are spinning your wheels trundling some weak fairy tale about PZ! And I followed this link from UD where the peerless Dave-gravity-is-strongest-force-Scott is once again turning himself into an object of merriment!
Best you leave this sorry excuse and fess up.
By kadana on Mar 24, 2008
Actually, no. That’s the list that you find on the Getexpelled site, here:
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/movies/expelled
But that only had events up into February.
The “private screenings” website is this one, which had the later showings, such as the Bloomington mall screening:
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled
I found that site at this address:
http://onegreatcityblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/private-screening.html
I put that site on several pro-science sites, which appears to have led to Myers signing up, and bringing Dawkins with him.
They are two different sites indeed. However, I should point out that there is nothing in either site I found it on, nor on the “special” rsvp site, that restricts who should “rsvp.” The invitation is open, although it is apparent that they were not counting on a host of people from the atheist convention to do so.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
By Glen Davidson on Mar 24, 2008
But remember, everyone was invited according to the site.
By Justin on Mar 24, 2008
William Wallace, you continue to be either willfully ignorant or dishonest about the situation. The link for the RSVP is easily accessible from the Expelled website. There is a general invitation on the site for anybody who sees it, which means you do not require a special invitation. The link to the RSVP system follows this general invitation.
The same system is in place by for promotional screenings of other films as well. You do not have to be specially invited, so please stop being an ignoramus.
At the end of the day, your disingenuity does mask the irony of the whole situation.
By xcdesignproponentsists on Mar 24, 2008
Or, more to the point, the site on the web advertising the “private screening” near Chicago (and accessed through Google), invites anyone and everyone who found their site to come:
No restrictions, no “stay away atheists,” or any such thing. I still don’t know exactly who their website is targeting, though obviously it wasn’t really meant for pro-science types.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
By Glen Davidson on Mar 24, 2008
Glen D: please click the link I provided as it is different from the first link you listed. It includes both private and public screenings, including the three locations/times listed in your second link. LOL, this is getting confusing, but the link I provided in comment 594 includes all the screenings so far (I think).
By zoltan on Mar 24, 2008
Naturally, I had already done so. I did not know that your link was different from mine, but regardless, the later showings are not in either your link or in the first one I gave. Here is the list from your link:
Please note that there are no screenings listed for March or April there. It does not have the Bloomington MN, screening at all.
Here is the list from the “special” rsvp link as recorded on March 12, 2008 (at http://groups.google.com/grou...):
There you see the listing “MN Bloomington AMC Mall of America 14 March 20 7:00 PM RSVP,” the one that Dawkins went to, and PZ tried to see. It is not on the list at your link.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
By Glen Davidson on Mar 24, 2008
You’re right. I am off the ball today. The weird thing was, I was only getting three locations/dates when I clicked that last link of yours. I’m still wrong.
By zoltan on Mar 24, 2008
That’s why I had to use a March 12 copy. After their debacle at Bloomington, they took off all of the screenings after March 20. Since then, they’ve been eliminating past showings, for no apparent reason.
I got four listings the last time I tried the “special” page for “private screenings.” I’m guessing that soon they’ll have none on that page.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
By Glen Davidson on Mar 24, 2008
I work at AMC Theatres (albeit not in the MN area). I can tell you that PZ is 100% correct as this is how screenings are done.
Zoltan’s description of how it works is 100% on the mark. You sign up on an RSVP page. There you input your information. Then you receive an email.
On the day of the screening, you check in with the correspondent from the film. If your name is on the list, you are allowed in. You can be screened for security/piracy reasons and you can have your ID checked.
This is the EXACT process that I went for to see a screening of JUNO.
There is no gate crashing. And, yes, the producer (or the representative of the film) can turn down anyone. Further, his story asserts that he was taken out of the line and not asked to leave once he provided his ID and things. Thus, it was a preemptive strike rather than a “I caught a gate-crasher”.
But alas, you are intentionally refusing to see the situation for how it works. I’m wondering that if there was a video if you’d still try to dispute it.
By Kyle on Mar 24, 2008
I would also like to add that you’ve completely ignored Justin’s points. Also, citing an invitation email isn’t very impressive.
There is a form for you to put your name, address etc etc for their records. After you fill that in, it is a simple generated email which can say the “personalized” things you seem to find as evidence against his story in the RSVP.
By Kyle on Mar 24, 2008
Kyle,
Nobody is arguing that is how you RSVP. You are missing the point: I challenge PZ Myers to produce his invitation, or evidence that “just about everybody” was gate-crashing (that is, registering with the RSVP system without ever having received an invite).
Regarding video: do you have video of “just about everybody” not getting an invitation and registering at the RSVP web site?
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
Kadana,
Could you post your invitation? Not your RSVP confirmation, but the invitation? But better yet, could you post PZ’s invitation?
Glenn,
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate the matter of fact attitude.
All,
I am starting to think this is a mutually beneficial gag.
Even so, I note that PZ has not provided any evidence that “just about everybody” was gate-crashing. I’ll close this for comments soon.
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
Just to let you know, I’ve e-mailed the [redacted] late this afternoon and I received a response from her asking a few more questions about the predicament. I think she was startled that I was even able to RSVP because they pulled the sign up sheet off the internet (I think I found a cached version of it). Would you mind, once she responds again tomorrow (I’m guessing she left the office when my reply to her reply was sent) if I can post that on this thread before closing for comments. If she says invitations weren’t necessary, then I think that settles the case.
By zoltan on Mar 24, 2008
Of which there is little evidence other than the fact that Wallace believes that RSVP means something different from how Expelled and other sites use it. In fact, there were quite a few online examples of ‘invitations’ to attend, including the link to the RSVP website. Now, the organizers may have innocently believed that their approach meant that only invited guests would show up but the ’success’ of the internet meant that their invite was available to any and all.
They messed up.
By PvM on Mar 24, 2008
That is but one of many ways, in fact, 1 seems highly redundant. You acknowledge that you will be attending by RSVP’ing and you receive an email. If they messed up and intended the system to be secure then they should not have left it open with no indication that this was an invitation only.
In fact, the same site was used for RSVP’ing to an ‘open invite’ to attend the Expelled Tour.
Seems there is a lot of back pedaling going on here.
By PvM on Mar 24, 2008
William, you’re intentionally missing the point. You don’t produce anything. Sure you can take the confirmation email with you but it’s usually not required. I know the screening of the Kite Runner I attended for KU was name-on-list only.
Therefore, he is not asserting anything other than it was a public RSVP system, which you seem to acknowledge. If this is true (and you admit it), and he and everyone else followed the same procedure. Therefore, his obvious deduction is that if you call him gate-crashing, you can call everyone else gate-crashing.
Moreover, if he was “gate-crashing” wouldn’t they have stopped ALL “gate-crashers”? Or do they purposefully only stop one? Your alternative theories make zero sense and you are, I think, intentionally ignorant of his argument and your flaws. But that’s fine, you can think what you want even if it’s wrong. Just don’t expect everyone to believe you.
By Kyle on Mar 24, 2008
And I might add: THERE IS NO INVITATION TO PRODUCE. I don’t see what’s so hard about that. And again, asking for people to produce invitations there are two things:
1) You must ask all people for their invitations. And since there isn’t one to produce (unless you mean confirmation email - which you say you don’t….)’
2) Let’s assume you are correct and there is an invitation to produce. Why would his family get in and not him? Why Dawkins? Why some of the other atheist members? Wouldn’t they want to stop ALL gate crashing rather than just “selected gate crashers”?
By Kyle on Mar 24, 2008
I will wait, and thank you in advance for sharing what you find. I trust you’ll share good, bad, or indifferent findings.
Kyle, you continue to be confused. There were invitation emails sent to churches *before* members of those churches RSVP’d. I have a copy of one such email. I quoted it above. PZ made the claim that ‘just about everybody” was gate-crashing, meaning, using the RSVP system without first being invited.
PZ’s incredible claim should be retracted or substantiated.
Show me the open invite (or a reliably cached version) to the Mall of America private screening, and show me where PZ claims that he responded to this mythical open invite. It seems much more likely that PZ acted according to Glen Davidson’s posting to Myers’ blogs.
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
What’s the difference? Davidson had found a link to RSVP to an invitation to attend the screening.
Show me where I distorted…
By PvM on Mar 24, 2008
Show me the specific link from Glen Davidson you think is relevant.
By William Wallace on Mar 24, 2008
I just have some questions William Wallace.
If PZ did in fact gate crash, why was his family as well as Dawkins allowed to enter, under the same tickets that he had arranged?
Would his apparent gate crashing not void their entry as well?
One can not say they were simply overlooked, because their entry was as PZ’s guests. And if he wasn’t allowed to be there, then … do you see my point?
By Garth Smith on Mar 25, 2008
Will,
You have to show me that a general response/registration on the Expelled site does not produce an invite. [redacted]
By kadana on Mar 25, 2008
The link that Glenn Davidson provided to the “private” events has “special” in the URL:
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled
The cached version of the RSVP for the Bloomington event has “events” in place of “special”:
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/events/rsvp/193
I have screen shots of the RSVP list and the form on my computer that I was able to find through the main website, inviting anyone to request a place, from the night that this happened. Surprise, surprise, when I clicked on the RSVP button for a particular showing it took me to exactly the same page and address that the cached version shows.
Both the page that showed all of the dates, and the individual page where you signed up had “events” in the URL, not “special”.
I will host both pages showing this if necessary.
In any case, William, you are going to have to explain why so many people who went through exactly the same process as PZ, at various locations, were all sent confirmation emails, turned up, and were let in? If it was invitation only, they would have known who they had sent invitations to, wouldn’t they? You should stop trying to smear a man who has done no wrong.
As to your claim about what PZ said in that video, if you would like me to go and find 1000 comments that you have made that have neither been substantiated or retracted, I could probably arrange that in no more than an hour. Stop being a hypocrite. It may not be true that those invited were gatecrashers but, by your own definition, anyone who went through the same channel as PZ is a gatecrasher. I challenge you to prove that everyone else had an invitation by showing each and every one of the invitations for each and every person that has been to a showing.
You are better than this nonsense, William. Of that I am sure.
By Damian on Mar 25, 2008
And you ignored my other questions. But let’s hope Garth’s (which are the same as mine) get answered.
I’ll wait.
By Kyle on Mar 25, 2008
How would I know? My guess would be either graciousness of the hosts, or that the others were not viewed to be as great of a threat.
Mens rea.
No.
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
zoltan,
You coming back?
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
Yeah, I just received the message about half an hour ago. They’ve changed the entire RSVP process to a waitlist system and the dates and locations are now TBD. Here is the text of the email:
Yes, the Calvary Chapel screening is by invitation only. We have posted waitlists at the following link getexpelled.com. You can sign-up in the area of your choice and if a screening confirms we can notify you.
I don’t understand why she would tell me to put myself on the waiting list if it is invitation-only. Seems pretty contradictory, don’t you think? She says it’s invitation only then says ‘you can sign-up in the area of your choice’. Even the people in charge of this are confused.
So here’s my final thought: it’s invitation-only but now you can sign up to be put on a waitlist, regardless of whether you’ve been invited. Per her words of course.
By zoltan on Mar 25, 2008
The question is whether the Bloomington screening was ever on the main site, however. The fact that the Bloomington screening is on a page which has “events” in its file name rather than “special” isn’t really important, because it would not be unreasonable for all of the screenings to have essentially the same file name for the sake of RSVPing. The question is whether or not the the event was listed on the main site, or only on the “private screenings” site.
Premise claims that the “private screenings” site was “proprietary,” although that makes no sense as stated, because it was on the web and the search engines. So they really don’t have any complaint to make, however it remains to be demonstrated that one could get to the Bloomington screening via the main site of Getexpelled.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
By Glen Davidson on Mar 25, 2008
Glen,
Again, I appreciate your “let the chips fall where they will” attitude.
If it can be demonstrated that one could get from the Bloomington screening RSVP from the main site of Getexpelled (without changing numbers in the URL), it may be mitigating as far as “gate crashing” goes.
But if that is how PZ got to the site, you would think he would have clarified that by now.
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
I wouldn’t think that; I would think he has been ignoring your silliness, and continues to do so.
By Sean on Mar 25, 2008
Sean,
Why do you think the PZ challenge is silly: PZ Myers, produce your invitation, or evidence that “just about everybody” was gate-crashing.
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
Let me get this straight. Please tell me if I am missing something.
Emails were sent out to select people and organizations.
These emails included a link to part of a web site. There was no serial number or other unique ID; anybody with the URL could go there.
If you went to this URL, you could enter your name and you were informed you could attend the screening.
The people running this system intended that only the people who got the invites would visit this URL, and that this URL would never go beyond the few people who’d been sent it?
At the time that PZ Meyers visited this URL, what language was present there that clarified who was supposed to RSVP? How was somebody who got this URL supposed to determine if they were permitted to RSVP or not?
If the web site didn’t clarify what was an “invitation”, then IMHO the people running the RSVP system were the ones to blame; it’s not gate crashing if they forgot to put a “private” sign up.
Also, the fact that the web site required that you enter your name and get email confirmation is another point in PZ Meyer’s favor - it makes it very clear that the people controlling the site had oversight.
If you just show up at an “invitation only” event un-announced, clearly you are trying to gate crash. If an openly-accessible URL says it’s invite only, fails to clarify what an invite is, takes your personal details and tells you to show up - you aren’t a gate crasher. Clearly they didn’t *intend* to tell PZ Meyers he could show up. But he ain’t gate crashing if the RSVP process is as vague as it sounds.
By gopi on Mar 25, 2008
Nice try.
Recently, a woman had over $1,000,000 deposited into her account on accident. And she spent it. She knew it wasn’t hers. But she spent it.
In another news story, two sisters who ran a defense supply service figured out a loophole in the automated system that allowed them to charge excessive shipping fees without audit for orders that were marked priority. And by excessive, I mean excessive. They were caught, eventually.[Washington Post 8-17-2007]
The difference between gaming the system for millions, and gaming the system for a $7 movie ticket, is one of quantity, not quality.
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
William:
Ridiculous hyperbole. Your analogy totally fails to address any of the points I made. I will address your analogy:
a) $1m? It is rather unlikely for somebody to give you a million dollars. Especially without telling you they were. However, movie tickets are given out for free quite frequently - in fact, the theater was filled with people who had gotten tickets for free. If the woman in your hypothetical example went to the bank to report the error and heard other people talking about how wonderful it was that they just got a million put into their accounts, then perhaps the analogy would be slightly more accurate.
b) That was intentional. They were aware of what they were doing.
I asked you to explain how somebody who was given the URL would realize that it was not intended for them. That fact that you have not leads me to the only reasonable conclusion - the web site didn’t actually say anything about what sort of invite you were expected to have.
I go to technical conferences quite frequently. Many of them are “invite only.” Many of them have a place on their web site for you to give them your information, and then they send you confirmation telling you that you can show up at the conference.
By your interpretation, every time I visit a web page that says “invitation only” I’m somehow gaming the system. That’s ludicrous. The way I hear the registration page in question talked about here, I probably would’ve considered the registration page - something published to the entire world - to itself be an invitation.
Let me broaden my challenge to you a little bit:
Please quote here *any* text anywhere that stated what sort of limitations were supposed to be in place for these invites.
By gopi on Mar 25, 2008
Okay. This is a tough one. Hmn. Let me think….
Got it: Dictionary! RSVP
I’ll respond to your challenge after PZ responds to mine:
Dr. Myers, please produce your invitation, or evidence that “just about everybody” was gate-crashing.
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
William:
If you would spend less time on sarcasm and more time on reading comprehension, you’ll have a better chance of a meaningful response.
You quote the dictionary definition for RSVP. OK. So? I asked you to quote from the materials *in the invitation* or on the web page.
To give two quick examples:
If the web page in question said, “Welcome, and thank you for your interest in a private screening of Expelled. Please RSVP below.”
…personally, I would interpret registration as a response to the text above; it sounds like the web page *itself* is an invite.
If the web page said, “Thanks for deciding to RSVP. Please enter your details here:”
…I would call it a bit ambiguous, but at least clear that some sort of invitations existed. However, it wouldn’t be clear to me that these invitations were intended to be totally closed non-transferrable ones; the fact that you had to register your details would make me believe that the people running the web site would make the final decision.
If the web page said, “We’re happy that your church group decided to RSVP to our exclusive invitation to a private screening of Expelled. Please enter the details of the group’s leader below:”
…that would *clearly* indicate that it was private.
You challenge Dr. Myers to produce an invitation. Yet you refuse to provide any evidence that Dr. Myers was told he needed an invitation.
Do you understand my point here? I don’t know if Dr. Myers gamed your system or not because you won’t tell me anything about your system.
I ask you again to *quote* from *your* materials where it says anything about invitations.
Clearly, the producers wanted only people who had gotten email to sign up. However, their *intentions* are insufficient to make Dr. Myers into a gate crasher. He is only a gate-crasher if he could have been reasonably expected to know that he should have only registered if he got emailed an invite.
You’re welcome to ignore my challenge of course - I’m just part of the peanut gallery here. However, your continued refusal to inform people of the *basic facts* of the situation reflect very poorly on you.
Let the facts speak for themselves. You have claimed Dr. Myers should have known he was expected to have an invite. I simply ask you to quote here the text Dr. Myers saw when he registered. Not a dictionary definition of a single term; context is everything.
By gopi on Mar 25, 2008
gopi,
You’re still confused. Here are the basic facts:
1. It is not my system.
2. PZ Myers announced his plan to disrupt the film: “I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen…”(Myers 8-22-2007)
3. PZ Myers RSVP’d to the private screening of the film, though it is questionable that he was ever invited in the first place.(Myers 3-21-2008)
4. PZ Myers was asked to leave.(Myers 3-21-2007)
5. PZ Myers left.(Myers 3-21-2007)
6. PZ Myers brought much publicity to the film.(Myers 3-21-2007)
7. PZ Myers asserted that just about everybody was gate crashing.(ThinkHA 3-21-2008)
Again, I happen to have an invitation to the film, as quoted here. So I know that at least some of the attendees were invited before using the RSVP system. PZ made the extraordinary claim that “just about everybody” gamed the RSVP system. My claims are ordinary in comparison.
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
Glen Davison has give the link to an anyone-welcome public invitation here:
[One Great City (Chicago) blog]
(my bold. Also note the link is to the “specials”)
This site is obviously pro-”expelled”. The owner, in the spirit of intellectiual openness associated with the film, obviously thought it was OK to extend the welcome to their readership - maybe his/her invitation had encouraged him/her to do exactly that. Glen merely did the same.
From the 11th of March onwards, anyone visiting this publicly advertised website which gives no indication that evil tentacled biology professors need not apply - would learn of various other available screenings, which they may choose to attend: Among them PZ, who with a clear conscious accepted the invitation, RSVP’d, received confirmation that his acceptance of the RSVP was in order and proceeded to the mall of America.
By steve_h on Mar 25, 2008
Note: “Invitation only” from expelled blog:
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
What invitation?
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
William, you are grasping at straws. And it’s also evident you are going to believe whatever you want regardless of the amount of evidence on one side or another.
But let’s see your list. PZ said he would disrupt the film. Hmm, that can happen at a paid admission showing or a screening, so it’s really a stupid point. Moreover, it’s called humor, something you don’t seem to grasp.
PZ RSVP’d but he wasn’t invited. Hmm, again, ignorance is bliss. I would like to ask how we are supposed to prove the process when they’ve taken it down?
PZ was asked to leave. And he did. Okay, so what?
PZ brought much publicity (all negative) to the film. This has nothing to do with anything.
PZ asserts that “just about everybody was gate-crashing”. And they were but you refuse to see his point. That’s fine. Believe what you want. Please.
THen you say “invitation only” from expelled blog. Sure. I can say invitation only and put a redemption page on my website for people to secure an invitation. Therefore, it’s for everyone. Think of it like this:
I sign up for gmail. Google is “inviting” me to experience their email client. I sign up. I confirm the registration (RSVP) and my account is created. That scenario goes for about ANYTHING on the internet. I can play semantics too.
Oh, and please be sure to point out that they’ve changed their story again:
“Recognizing the opportunity to make a point of the inconvenience and pain that they, and others like them, have caused to numerous scientists and educators, the decision was made beforehand to deny Myers access to the film if he actually showed up.”
So they had his name. Hmmmmm….. And this is what, the THIRD, change in their story?
By Kyle on Mar 25, 2008
Holy crap?!?! He even BOLDED “invitation” in his quote and you STILL won’t accept it. ROFL
By Kyle on Mar 25, 2008
The invitation at http://onegreatcityblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/private-screening.html which says
See “you are invited”? That’s what we call “An invitation”.
Or are you claiming that we should first determine that our invitations are genuine by hiring private detectives to track down the issurer of the invitation and get them to swear that their invitation is legally ‘in order’ before we reply? How many people in the queue at the Mall of America did that?
By steve_h on Mar 25, 2008
PZ was invited to a private screening in Chicago?
I see the source of confusion now.
We are talking about the invitation only screening in Bloomington, the one PZ claimed “just about everybody” was gate crashing.
As far as I know, if PZ was invited to the film in Chicago, he was allowed to attend the film in Chicago.
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
If you follow the link to the chicago screening, you would have been futher invited to chose from a variety of alternate screenings. That link does not specify a chicago-only event. You get the invite and it leads to additional options.
William, what on that page, indicates that only sychophants need apply?
By steve_h on Mar 25, 2008
Steve, by the way, what makes you think that PZ registered via the Chicago Blog?
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
I have no reason to believe that he did. However, they felt it was appropriate to share the rsvp site with the world, presumably because they had been encouraged to do so - if not, they are possibly the real villains here — and they are openly supporters of the film.
Thier blog post was dated 11 March 2008. There is plenty of time for PZ to receive that link via any number of intermediaries and reply to it in good faith. Glen has stated that he found the link here and shared it with a wider audience. He was doing nothing different to them. Generally we assume innocent until proven guilty in such matters so why do you insist that we hold PZ guilty until proven innocent?
By steve_h on Mar 25, 2008
Yes, I note a Chicago blog posted a link to the RSVP site.* Glen Davidson has already disclosed that he posted links to RSVP pages to PZ’s blog, and to Panda’s Thumb.
None of these are from Expelled. In the case of the Chicago blog, it looks like they pasted an email invitation they received to a blog. A bit strange, I admit, but this hardly substantiates that “just about everybody” who RSVP’d for the Mall of America screening did not do so in response to a real invitation.
*I have not yet established that you can get to the Bloomington showing from that link, but you already admitted that you have no reason to believe found the RSVP through the Chicago blog
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
If you visit the Chicago blog there is nothing to indicate that attendance is any way limited. The number of people who could access this is link is pretty much the population of the world with internet access.
I can’t prove that PZ accessed the site via this however it is entirely possible. Glen Davison has indicated that he drew the attention of a wide audience to this site and many sites have implicated him. However, he was only sharing information which was already out there in the public domain and in no way indicated to be private and/or privileged — In short, there’s no limit to the number of people who may have informed PZ of this site in email, and there is not limit to the number of people who may have independantly discovered similar sites on the interwebs (over and above the total number of people of the earth with internet access, and therefore no limit to the number of ways that PZ could have been encouraged to register.
In short, PZ is innocent until proven guilty — you prove PZ guilty or admit that you are holding him to a standard that no other person to which no other person is held.
Now for your evidence that PZ hacked the site ….
By steve_h on Mar 25, 2008
ROFL, this is comical William. You just run around in circles trying to put out all the fires on your argument. Actually, I think it’s more turn your head and look away as the house burns.
Are you seriously this dense?
By Kyle on Mar 25, 2008
What constitutes a “real” invitation?
By Kyle on Mar 25, 2008
Where is the Mall of America invitation only screening? I only see:
Phoenix, AZ
Denver, CO
Louisville, KY
Baltimore, MD
Detroit, MI
Philadelphia, PA
Milwaukee, WI
Go ahead and post the series of links separated with “->” to illustrate how you get from the Chicago blog to the Mall of America RSVP page. Use cached copies if necessary.
I’m routinely held to a higher standard at PT-mafia sites. Certain PT-mafia fans take what I write, exaggerate it, and then demand that I prove their exaggeration is true.
In this present case, I am not exaggerating. If anything, I am understating, since:
By “just about everybody” and “all“, I did not assume PZ was accusing everybody, but rather, just those who had registered using the RSVP page. That is, I excluded their guests (such as Dr. Dawkins).
Speaking of exaggeration…text search for “hacked” leads me to your comment first. Please don’t resort to such deceit. Gaming an RSVP system (which seems to be the most probable explanation) is not hacking.
By William Wallace on Mar 25, 2008
Oops. I read your previous too quickly. You already invited me to use cached copies if necessary, so I didn’t need to inform you about google’s cache and since you suggested it, I should not have assumed that you would accuse me of modifying my cached copy.
I apologize for assuming the worst about you.
Steve
By steve_h on Mar 26, 2008
I can get from the word of mouth invite at the one great city blog http://onegreatcityblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/private-screening.html to the list of screenings at http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled.
As you state, that list has only six entries NOW. That’s because the movie makers have been covering up thier tracks since PZ’s visit.
However, if you act quickly you will still be able to see the original because Google keep a cache of web pages that they index for a short time.
here
or here.
I’ve made a copy from the cache but I expect you will accuse me of lying if give you a link to it.
By steve_h on Mar 26, 2008
Also, if you are using the google toolbar, you can get to the information without relying on links I have given to you.
Enable the page rank button in the toolbar options.
Visit the specials page.
Right click the down-arrow to the right of PageRank.
Choose “View cached snaphot of page”
(optional) Do the decent thing and admit your mistake.
By steve_h on Mar 26, 2008
Sorry, I forgot to add. I apologize for my use of the word hacking. It was an exagerration and uncalled for.
By steve_h on Mar 26, 2008
Steve,
Thanks. Based on your links, I concur that you could get from the “One Great City” (Chicago Blog) posting of the invitation for the Chicago area screening to a getexpelled page with the heading Expelled Private Screenings that has RSVP links to multiple screenings, according to the version cached on March 16. This Expelled Private Screenings page had events listed at the following cities:
Tempe AZ
Dublin CA
Santa CA
Broomfield CO
Lake FL
Decatur GA
Deerfield IL
Schaumburg IL
Louisville KY
Cambridge MA
Owings MD
Grand MI
Livonia MI
Bloomington MN
Creve MO
Kansas MO
Charlotte NC
Albuquerque NM
Brooklyn OH
Portland OR
Plymouth PA
Franklin TN
Houston TX
San TX
Seattle WA
Milwaukee WI
I appreciate the apology about the use of the word “hacked”.
Please continue with your argument.
A few points that I think need to be overcome:
1. The chain of links goes through a Expelled Private Screenings page.
2. There is no indication that the Chicago blog had permission to post their invitation to a blog. (If they did not have permission, this is solely the fault of the Chicago Blog).
3. You and I have already agreed that there is no reason to believe that PZ registered via the Chicago blog.
4. If I understand him correctly, Glen Davidson has said he posted direct to RSVP links at two of the blogs PZ frequents.
By William Wallace on Mar 26, 2008
“Please continue with your argument”.
What’s to continue? Your case against PZ collapsed. There is no evidence that he Gamed the system. There was nothing on the RSVP site to indicate that only people who had been personally contacted by the movie makers were entitled to register. The page itself invites the read to “choose a location”.
1. “It goes through an Expelled Private Screenings page”.
So what? “Private” could just mean that the general public won’t be able to buy tickets at the theater box office on the day, but only people on the list - which you get on by choosing a cinema and giving your details in advance.
2. “No indication that the Chicago blog had permission.” As you note, this has nothing to do with PZ. Also, I see in various places that the movie makers would employ “viral marketing” techniques. I.e. they invite just a few people and rely on them passing the word. Otherwise surely they would have issued invites which indentified the invitee so that on visiting the page they’d see something like “Welcome William Wallace. Please choose a screening and indicate how many people will be accomanying you
3. So what? He could have done. He could have got the invite indirectly(e.g. via Glen Davison), or somebody could have emailed him the link
(e.g. http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled A christian web site urging people to pass invites to email that precious link to their friends - Ok PZ didn’t get his invite from them as that page is dated 2008-03-20. Why don’t you go to that site and accuse them of gaming the system?
4. “Glen Davidson has said he posted direct to RSVP links at two of the blogs PZ frequents” So what? That’s one more route by which PZ could have got to the link without doing anything wrong.
In short there is no reason to assume PZ’s guilt.
As to the other matter. I don’t know why PZ said everyone was gatecrashing - but they certainly could have been using your and Mathers’ definitions. He was certainly not the only person who was there without a direct personal invite from one of the film-makers. He stated right at the beginning that all of his family members registered individually and Kristine registered too. Other people were in the same position as him, but he was singled out.
By steve_h on Mar 26, 2008
Collapsed?
This thread is closed. Additional comments can be left at a new entry, The smoking gun…
“Collapsed.” LOL. Steve_h is a parody of Evolander. You had me going for a minute.
By William Wallace on Mar 26, 2008