Sans commentaires

by Matthew Cobb

This exchange between Bill Maher and Mark Pryor, the Democratic Senator from Arkansas, appeared on 9gag.com. You can watch the extract, which was recorded in 2009, here, and the full interview here. Make sure you scroll down to the final frame.

 

73 Comments

  1. Barry Lyons
    Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    Brilliant!

  2. M'thew
    Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Bill Maher has his faults, but this is priceless. Wonder if he’ll ever be having an interview with another senator, though. He might get “shunned” after this.

    • gluonspring
      Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      I’m pretty surprised he had an interview with this senator. What did he think was going to happen?

      • Diane G.
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 11:18 am | Permalink

        Just what happened. Good TV.

      • Posted May 9, 2014 at 11:18 am | Permalink

        I’m fairly certain Maher got the interview under false pretenses, in that they didn’t know exactly what was going to be discussed nor that it would be so confrontational.

        I remember reading that Francis Collins was upset because he thought they were going to discuss science and religion, but Maher instead challenged him on the accuracy of the Bible and New Testament.

        Not that I think this is necessarily wrong – these people are public figures that should expect to be confronted about their beliefs. But it helps explain how Maher could get so many ludicrous interviews.

        • Alex
          Posted May 9, 2014 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

          That does by no means make it less alarming. Even if hed pulled the good senator out of his morning shower, that would not change obe iota about his state of mind as revealed by these “ludicrous” interviews. IOW, unfortunately they are not ludicrous *because* of mahers technique…

          • Posted May 9, 2014 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

            Oh, I completely agree. Just wanted to share how some of the interviews might have been obtained.

            • Posted May 9, 2014 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

              You are sharing a made up story — that contains an accusation of “false pretenses” — you are ‘fairly certain’ of despite acknowledging you have no evidence to support it.

              • Posted May 9, 2014 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

                Um…not made up. This is from a religious website but it shows how the ordeal went down with Collins. He thought the interview was going to be about the human genome and the relationship of science and religion, and Maher brought the discussion to the historicity of the Gospels, where Collins floundered, and that’s the only part Religulous showed.

                http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/stevenwaldman/2008/10/the-case-against-religulous-th.html

                It’s not like this is grossly immoral stuff – at worst it’s a bit misleading, and it doesn’t take away from the idiocy displayed in the movie. But should we really be surprised that Maher and his producers might have been slightly deceptive in order to get interviews for which the sole purpose was to poke fun at their beliefs?

              • Posted May 9, 2014 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

                I don’t know from the account you offer whether Collins was duped or not. The segment from the religious website doesn’t include any details about any agreement between Maher and Collins regarding interview content. But I didn’t say you made up anything about the Maher-Collins interview.

                The “made up” I referred to is your claim in para 1 above: that you are ‘fairly certain … false pretenses … not confrontational.’ It’s well and good to level this sort of accusation if you provide proof for it, slanderous if you do not.

                I don’t mean to make too big a deal out of this small slight, and I’m certainly not pointing this out to defend Bill Maher. My comments aren’t about Maher and his professionalism, or lack thereof. I’m simply stating that if their is evidence for your claim that Maher pulled a fast one on Mark Pryor, you have yet to produce it.

              • Diane G.
                Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

                I don’t mean to make too big a deal out of this small slight…

                Well you certainly are.

                How’d you get from “I’m fairly certain” to slander? FWIW, I’m fairly certain these sorts of interviews area obtained under rather false premises, too; just as the creationists do with scientist interviews.

              • Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

                For some reason I can’t respond to your most recent comment, so I’ll respond here.

                In re: to the Collins interview, I think it’s fair to say that Maher was misleading in what was going to be discussed (based on the email presented on that religious site) and selectively edited to show only the most embarrassing portion, which isn’t Collins area of expertise.

                Now, based on this I made an assumption that Maher and his producers might not have been totally honest getting other interviews. Turns out this is true. I feel very weird using conservative sites as news sources, but the fact is we wont’t find this sort of thing on a liberal site.

                http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/15/bill-maher-admits-he-lied-get-people-appear-religulous

                The video is gone, but this shows Maher, at the very least, wasn’t entirely forthcoming about his interview with Pryor. It also documents how a pastor was told they were working on a PBS documentary, and that Maher admitted they lied. Again, this shouldn’t be surprising – few people gladly sign up for an interview for which the sole purpose is to be ridiculed.

              • Posted May 10, 2014 at 6:35 am | Permalink

                Look, this is not on the level of conservative media and conservative politicians claiming Hilary Clinton acted wrongly with regard to Bengazi, is covering it up, and it’s just like those Clintons did with Vince Foster and Monica Lewinski, even though not a shred of evidence in support has ever been produced.

                Did Bill Maher deceive Mark Pryor in some fashion prior to conducting that recorded interview? I have no idea, tomniece is at best only fFairly certain”, is both combined do not add up to “yes.”

                Did Bill Maher job Francis Collins in an interview years ago, and throughout his career is his behavior sometimes dodgy?

                Does that make him guilty of any accusation at any time, no evidence required, a la the Mark Pryor interview? For Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, absolutely.

                I was wrong to describe this accusation as slanderous. Since it is defamatory in nature, but in print and not speech, it is actually libel.

                If it mattered enough to go to court. Which it doesn’t.

                However. Making unfounded claims of this nature rather undermines criticism of conservative media, and conservative politicians (Darrel Issa), when they do identical things.

              • Posted May 10, 2014 at 7:04 am | Permalink

                You need to quit it with these accusations. Even when you take away your accusation of slander, you can’t help but accuse me of libel. This isn’t okay.

                I’ve no idea why you’re bringing up Clinton and Benghazi and the conservative media. They’re entirely irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

                “”Did Bill Maher deceive Mark Pryor in some fashion prior to conducting that recorded interview? I have no idea, tomniece is at best only fFairly certain”, is both combined do not add up to “yes.”””

                Did you even read what I posted? Pryor said the information leading up to the interview was misleading and that he didn’t know Maher was working on a documentary. This absolutely verifies what I said about false pretenses.

                “”However. Making unfounded claims of this nature rather undermines criticism of conservative media, and conservative politicians (Darrel Issa), when they do identical things.””

                It was an unfounded (but reasonable) claim when I made it, and I have since supported it with documentation. Maher was misleading with Pryor. He also was misleading with other people to get interviews. I think everyone but you realizes this and doesn’t feel the need to insult those who point it out.

                You’ve shown a failure to be respectful and fair in this conversation. This is my last post on the topic.

              • Posted May 10, 2014 at 7:28 am | Permalink

                You were neither slandered nor libeled, tomneice; those are legal terms and can be the basis of a lawsuit, which you are free to file if you think that they’re accurate.

                But they’re not, and you’re wrong about those accusations. So retract them. You’re right that you’re not going to publish on this thread any more, but if you don’t retract your legal allegations, you’ll never publish here anywhere anymore. Got it?

              • Posted May 10, 2014 at 8:36 am | Permalink

                Jerry, I’m genuinely confused here.

                I didn’t make a single legal accusation against anyone. It was lsnrchrd1 that accused *me* of both slander and libel against Maher, both of which were inaccurate and inappropriate allegations, as I backed up what I said about Maher being misleading in getting interviews.

                I didn’t mean for my post to start this hubbub, and I apologize for that. What I said was very benign, and Diane G joined in above to agree with me. I’m unsure why I’m on the hot seat here.

              • Posted May 10, 2014 at 8:48 am | Permalink

                Whoops, I’m sorry; I missed the earlier accusations of slander and libel. I’m asking lsnrchrd1 to retract his accusations now; I won’t have commenters accusing each other of legal transgressions.

                Again, my apologies. But the next time someone accuses someone of slander or libel on this site, they will be banned without warning.

                lsnrchrd1, you have one chance to retract your accusations. I don’t want this stuff flying about on this site.

              • Posted May 10, 2014 at 8:59 am | Permalink

                No worries Jerry, thanks for clearing that up. I can’t imagine it’s an easy job to keep tabs on hundreds of comments all while posting new content everyday! Not to mention your professorship duties. Thanks for all you do, it’s appreciated greatly.

              • Diane G.
                Posted May 10, 2014 at 10:16 am | Permalink

                Whew, thanks, Jerry, for stepping in on a discussion I felt was being taken to ridiculous extremes.

                tomneice, I am very impressed by the calm and polite tone you maintained throughout.

              • Posted May 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

                ‘I’m fairly certain Maher got the (Pryor) interview under false pretenses, in that they didn’t know exactly what was going to be discussed nor that it would be so confrontational.’ — tomniece

                All right, Jerry, as to the apology demanded from me:

                If stating that ‘I’m fairly certain Maher’ resorted to use of ‘false pretenses’ to get the Pryor interview is not in fact a defamatory statement that exactly fits the definition of libel, then I apologize for failure to understand that definition.

                tomniece, that is the only thing you state that I disagree with. I attempted to compare and contrast it with conservative claims about Benghazi, Death Panels, and the Vince Foster non-scandel — all unevidenced claims.

                My only issue here is about claims and support for them. At this point, nothing I have seen supports the claim that Maher deceived Mark Pryor using as-yet-to-be-identified “false pretenses.” Like a deity, I will believe without rancor once the existence is established. Until that evidence is presented, I question the validity of the claim.

                None of my commentary has anything to do with Bill Maher, his methods or aims, his tv show, Religulous, or Maher style, because none of that is relevant to the claim that Maher operated under “false pretenses.” I continue to wait for the appearance of evidence that Mark Pryor was jobbed somehow regarding this interview. What, specifically, are these “false pretenses” that tomniece alleges and that I am somehow in trouble over?

                That Neil Sheppard piece in NewsBusters is not anything I would want to defend a position with in court, by the way.

        • JJ77
          Posted May 10, 2014 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

          I like how the interview becomes confrontational as soon as the interviewer beings up religion. Bill is calm and collected here, asking questions. There’s nothing confrontational about it. If the senator doesn’t really believe in what he says, he should stop saying it.

        • J. Anthony Carter
          Posted May 20, 2014 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

          Wait… YOU’re “fairly certain” B. Maher got the interview under false pretenses??? YOU??? Since when do either the Senator or Bill Maher ask, invite, concern or even notify YOU when they contact, interact or negotiate to meet??? HMMMM??
          In that it would be “so” confrontational?? What the hell? Where’s all this “confrontation” happening? B. Maher didn’t DO or SAY anything except it concerned him that there was someone Serving in Public Office that believed in talking snakes. The freaking SENATOR shot HIMSELF in the foot (That means he did damage to himself without any help from outside sources), and he did it with all the skill and panache of someone who believes in talking snakes from 5,000 years ago!
          And this trait of wounding yourself sans help or excuse seems extant in yourself as well!! re: “Francis Collins was upset because he thought they were going to discuss science and religion, but Maher instead challenged him on the accuracy of the Bible and New Testament.” Umm, excuse me but… aren’t the Bible and the New Testament definable as “religion”??? Isn’t the Theory of Evolution definable as “science”?? Doesn’t that mean the Senator was questioned about science and religion?? Are you just to dense (look it up) to understand either concept?? And since when does asking questions qualify as “a challenge”?
          When B. Maher asked the Senator if he believed in evolution his reply was that the Scientific Community was “divided” on the specifics concerning evolution. Divided??? Since when? There isn’t a member of the Scientific Community that has one iota of doubt or confusion about the idea, concept or THEORY of Evolution! The freaking Senator was LYING at best or at worst too stupid to have ANY facts with which to reply and was pulling sheet outta his arse to cover his inability to take a stand on something as absolutely concrete as Evolution!!
          Folks, we have here one undeniable example of an individual who has the power to pass laws and make policy in our country and he can’t even state categorically that he believes in a scientifically proven principle. One that every scientific mind in the WORLD agrees on!! What does this say about his ability to read, understand, act and enact LAWS and GOVERNMENT POLICY that RULES your LIFE!!!!!!!! And he’s not the only one either… think about it!!

      • Glombart
        Posted May 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

        As the senator stated- “You don’t have to pass a…..”

  3. Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    I remember that. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    • darrelle
      Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:54 am | Permalink

      Exactly. I’m pretty sure I did both at the same time when I first saw this a couple of years ago.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:52 am | Permalink

        I was surprised when I watched this for the first time that the senator was actually so weak. He just seemed to cave in and admit that he might be a dumb ass.

        • darrelle
          Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:05 am | Permalink

          He looked just like one too. I imagined a 3rd grader doing something he knew was nursery school silly being caught by the teacher.

    • J. Anthony Carter
      Posted May 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

      Remember that next time you vote someone into Office!!!!!!!

  4. Greg Esres
    Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    I’d be happier cheering on Bill Maher if he weren’t an anti-science guy himself.

    • Dominic
      Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:30 am | Permalink

      Is he?

      • drew
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

        In some ways yes. He’s made ill-informed statements on things like nutrition and vaccines.

        • WT
          Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:44 am | Permalink

          Maher’s a perfect example of someone who’s ostensibly “pro-science” while having very little interest in or understanding of science. His comments on vaccines, nutrition, and GMOs routinely fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy. We’re all sick because of ~TOXINS~, that kind of stuff.

          No one’s perfect. He’s a comedian and he’s funny at times. But he’s not someone I’d point to as a great proponent for atheism, science, or rationality.

          • Posted May 9, 2014 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

            Yes, he, like so many others, just happens to agree with science, or rationality at one time or another.

            We’re all adults. We can decide when to disregard them.

            And as we see, this strongly correlates with science/rationality deriving the answers the deciders want.

          • J. Anthony Carter
            Posted May 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

            No, no we can’t have people as unqualified as “comedians” having opinions or stating their views can we? I mean really… a “comedian”? What do they know about science and religion and the Bible and the Theory of Evolution?? I’d wager THIS comedian has more going on between any two neurons in a minute than you do in a whole week.
            Since when does someone’s being a comedian disqualify them from having attended school? From having learned the same things you have that YOU use to base your silly, biased and unwarranted opinions on?
            This “comedian”, and several others I can mention have IQs that when closed in a locked chest and buried 6 feet underground would still shine brighter than yours! Yet here YOU are voicing your inane, trite, opinionated two cents worth. Tell me… which Senator are YOU interviewing? Hmmmm??? Have you ever even SEEN a Senator let alone interviewed one?

      • Greg Esres
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:48 am | Permalink

        He’s an anti-vaxxer.

        • Mike in Barcelona
          Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:02 am | Permalink

          And he has repeated some of the worst anti-GMO lies ever. He is definitely NOT a science ally. He knows his base is liberals who have their own anti-science bias (anti-vax, anti-GMO, believe in homeopathy), and he panders to them shamelessly. I once thought he was an enlightened critic, but I guess ratings are ratings. Too bad.

          • Mike in Barcelona
            Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:06 am | Permalink

            Not to say all libs believe that nonsense, but he embraces woo when it suits him. How many appearances has Deepak made on his show? At least 3 that I have seen, possibly more, and never a word of criticism or a hard question from Maher. Maher is as scientific as Arianna Huffington (scientific when it makes repubs look bad, but pass the kool-aid otherwise).

            • Posted May 9, 2014 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

              There is no political divide for woo from what I’ve seen. Liberals (small L) can be prone due to their open mindedness.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      I wouldn’t say he is anti-science but he certainly needs to educate himself about science better. I’ve seen him make several blunders recently on Real Time – one about cell phones – thinking that RF radiation is ionizing radiation & another time about not understanding the Big Bang. I think these are things everyone needs to be educated about.

      • Greg Esres
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:45 am | Permalink

        “he certainly needs to educate himself ”

        Nope, there is no charitable interpretation of his positions….he’s been repeatedly schooled by scientists, yet refused to adopt new information. He’s randomly nutty.

  5. Matt G
    Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t every Republican member of the House Science Committee a YEC?

    • eric
      Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:34 am | Permalink

      Maybe, but this guy’s a (D).

    • Posted May 9, 2014 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      I believe that’s correct. Additionally, many of those same people (if not all) are climate change deniers.

  6. TJR
    Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    LOL.

    Literally.

  7. JBlilie
    Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    This is a scene from Religulous. Great film, see it.

  8. Kingasaurus
    Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    When I see stuff like this, it just tells me that guys like Pryor aren’t really strict creationists. They may be religious, and most likely are theistic evolutionists if you got them in a truly honest moment. But listen to the way he’s answering the question! He’s so afraid of alienating any creationist constituents, that he gives the safest answer he can without ever trying to say anything bad about anything.

    Yes, some politicians are proudly fundamentalist and are proud to boldly deny evolution. But I’m willing to bet Pryor absolutely thinks literal belief in Genesis is nuts. He’s practically wink-wink-nudge-nudge-ing at Maher!

    Sad that a guy like Pryor sees the need to be so manipulative and gutless that he can’t even give a straight answer on this obvious question without the fear of losing votes.

    • darrelle
      Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:52 am | Permalink

      He is a Politicreationist.

      • Kingasaurus
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:54 am | Permalink

        Correct.

      • Daoud
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:00 am | Permalink

        In Arkansas, I’m sure he had no choice. But I do love his admission of having a low IQ ;)

        • gluonspring
          Posted May 9, 2014 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

          Many voters appreciate that. Means he’s not one of those elitists.

      • eric
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:16 am | Permalink

        It’s just pandering. Frankly as long as some congresscritter’s voting record and legislative contributions are good and effective, I will hold my nose and let that congresscritter pander to people I disagree with for their votes. Actions count more than campaign words.

        The same is true when I’m the person they’re pandering to. If this guy were running to for reelection in my district this year, I wouldn’t care how much he said he supported evolution education on the campaign trail. I’m going to look and see if he threw any legislative bones to creationists, and if he did, I’m going to vote against him. (But, just to reemphasize the original point, if he didn’t, I don’t really care what pro-creationist stuff he says in interviews).

        • Kingasaurus
          Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:20 am | Permalink

          —(But, just to reemphasize the original point, if he didn’t, I don’t really care what pro-creationist stuff he says in interviews).—-

          I get that, but isn’t it sad that he feels he has to?

          • eric
            Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:49 am | Permalink

            It is indeed sad that politics is a dirty business, full of unpleasant compromises. Let me know when you come up with a fix for that. :)

            • Posted May 9, 2014 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

              a good start would be eliminating influence peddling lobbying and limiting or eliminating (along with their person-hood) corporate donations

              The leader of the Greens up here tweeted on the evils of wi-fi from her Blackberry…

              • Posted May 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

                hmm, strike dinna woik on influence peddling

                oh well

        • darrelle
          Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:02 am | Permalink

          When it comes to voting I vote for the person I determine, from what information I have at my disposal, will have the least negative impact on working towards the kind of society I want to live in.

          Nevertheless, I do care about whether or not people lie to get votes. I do not accept the system, I merely endure it as best I can. And while I may vote for a carny like this Senator here, in fact have many times, I won’t fool myself into thinking that there is likely to be a complete disconnect between what he says and the way he votes.

          The reason the typical politician lies like this is to increase or maintain their access to wealth and power, not to gain or maintain the capability to do what is best for society.

          In my opinion, which may of course be rather smelly to others, just the fact that someone wants to be a politician is a good indication that they should probably be excluded from consideration. I think it would be better to choose people at random, as is done for jury duty, for most all elected political offices. It couldn’t possibly be worse than what we have now.

        • Greg Esres
          Posted May 9, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink

          “I will hold my nose and let that congresscritter pander to people I disagree with for their votes. Actions count more than campaign words.”

          It’s a missed opportunity to educate the public; instead, he reinforces their beliefs from a position of power and authority.

    • Posted May 10, 2014 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

      I’m not so sure. Let’s not give him the benefit of the doubt because he isn’t Republican. I don’t trust either party in America. From his Wikipedia page:

      “Pryor is Christian.[37] He was featured in the 2008 Bill Maher documentary Religulous, in which he tells Maher that he could believe in Young Earth creationism,[38] yet he also sees evolution as a feasible idea.[39] He states at the beginning of the interview that he is an Evangelical Christian. He also states that he believes in the Rapture, and that “You don’t need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate”.[40]

      According to author Jeff Sharlet, Pryor is affiliated with a political organization called the Family. Sharlet quoted Pryor as stating that through the Family he “had learned that the separation of church and state was a sort of secular exaggeration” and that “Jesus did not come to bring peace. Jesus came to take over.”[41]”

      If he can believe in the Rapture, which is a pretty fundamentalist belief, then it’s not a stretch to think he’s also a Young Earth Creationist. Whether he says it in from of some crowds and not others is irrelevant, anyone wished to be taken seriously shouldn’t support the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old under almost any circumstance.

      Let’s not forget the polls Jerry frequently posts either. There isn’t anything that indicates a 1:1 correlation between YECs and Republicans.

  9. Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Amazing to see such candor from a Senator. But also indicative of the fact that, among the voting public, being a dumb schlub is actually a plus. It those know-it-all expert types that we’d rather not have in positions of power.

    • Kingasaurus
      Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:53 am | Permalink

      You’d see more candor from an (R) who was really a creationist. Pryor is a (D) in a southern state. He doesn’t want to say anything that can be used in a campaign commercial later in a state loaded with creationists.

      Pryor’s not dumb. He knows what scientists say. I’m willing to bet he’s not a creationist at all. He’s just deflecting the question so the answer won’t do him any damage.

      I’d call that a lot of things, but “candor” isn’t one of them.

      • abrotherhoodofman
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:41 am | Permalink

        That would be a BINGO.

      • darrelle
        Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:10 am | Permalink

        I agree completely with what you have said.

        I think, but of course don’t know, that Stephen was likely refering to the Senator’s IQ related comments, and aiming for irony.

      • Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:41 am | Permalink

        I suspect you may be right. Still not sure, though. There are still a lot of dummies with Ds after their names.

  10. Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    LOL! Very funny, and a bit sad…

  11. abrotherhoodofman
    Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Ha ha ha great stuff Jerry!

    • abrotherhoodofman
      Posted May 9, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      What? Matthew Cobb did this post?

      My bad. Sorry Matthew!
      ;)

  12. Dawn Oz
    Posted May 9, 2014 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    This movie finally made it to free TV in Australia, and its on our iView for a few more days – I let all on my network, and the various atheist FB sites know.

  13. uglicoyote
    Posted May 10, 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Road.

  14. Posted May 10, 2014 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Obviously, not. Sigh.

  15. MorsGotha
    Posted May 11, 2014 at 5:35 am | Permalink

    Sir Professor Ceiling Cat,

    As much as it pleases me such public figures are outted for their inane views, I cant help but be reminded by:

    This

    Sincerely Morsgotha

    • MorsGotha
      Posted May 11, 2014 at 5:58 am | Permalink

      I feel I must clarify my views. I am not saying that maher and/or the editors are being purposely deceptive, nor that they are being deceptive at all.

      I am saying that it is best to reserve judgement until we do have the full interview.

      I respectably submit that ‘and the full interview here’ is not the full interview sir.

      • MorsGotha
        Posted May 11, 2014 at 6:11 am | Permalink

        Foot in mouth. I apologise for the erroneous uses of double negatives and writing respectably instead of respectfully!

        And of course addressing Prof Ceiling Cat instead of Prof Cobb.

        I will stop posting now :)


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/sans-commentaires/ […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28,811 other followers

%d bloggers like this: