There's nothing so wretchedly dishonest that Canadian IDiot Denyse O'Leary won't put it into print, like, oh, this (emphasis added):
Today at the Design of Life blog: Is intelligent design ready for prime time?
Well, whether it is or not, that's where it is going, in April, when the Expelled film opens.
DESIGN OF LIFE: You interviewed 150 scientists for your film. I wonder if that's a record. I gather an effort has been made to discredit the film on the grounds that the anti-ID folk were misrepresented, basically that you tricked them into taking part.
["Expelled" Producer MARK] MATHIS: ... But they've become very used to only one side. Apparently they didn't understand that we were really going to do just what we said we were going to do.
Really? You did just what you said you were going to do, Mark? PZ begs to differ:
Expelled producer seems to be embarrassed about his sneaky tactics
I wrote to Mark Mathis about his movie, Expelled, which I was told was going to be called Crossroads. Here is the entirety of my message:
Hey, I just learned today that the actual film is now called "Expelled", that it features Ben Stein, and that it's really a gung- ho pro-creationism/anti-science film. I would have agreed to be interviewed even if you'd been honest with me about the subject — I'm not reticent about my opinions — so I don't understand why you felt you had to conceal your intent. Care to explain yourself? Was this the movie you planned from the beginning?
Now I've gotten his reply!
Thank you for your recent communication. Please know that I strongly disagree with the insinuations and characterizations made in your e-mail to me. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for sharing your viewpoints, and I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
What a curiously defensive response. There was no insinuation at all in my email: he wasn't honest with me, and he did conceal his intent. I gave him an opportunity to respond, and all he can say is that he disagrees with me on something in that email? What was it?
I think the underhanded way he obtained interviews with some of his subjects is a sore point that he'd rather not discuss. I guess I can't blame him — if I'd had to misrepresent myself to get an interview I'd probably be a bit shamefaced, too.
For bonus eye-rolling hilarity, here's Denyse waxing philosophical on honesty and accuracy:
To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either.
And if anyone has the right to chide you about repeated misinformation, it's Denyse. It's an irony thing, you know.
SUPER DUPER BONUS DUMBFUCKITUDE: And the Denyse O'Leary self-referential, hermetically-sealed link farm is in full bloom.
I'm guessing Denyse is in no danger of violating that Commandment about not coveting thy neighbour's ... whatever it was. Denyse is so unabashedly and terminally in love with herself, I can't imagine her being the slightest bit interested in anything her neighbour owns.