Tuesday, February 19, 2008


And over at the He-Man Woman Haters Club, Matthew actually has the jaw-dropping audacity to call out PZ Myers. Yeah ... that would be Matthew throwing down the gauntlet to PZ, and PZ undoubtedly responding with an appropriate level of "Michael who?"

Recall, if you will, that Matthew is the scientifically illiterate steaming turd who misrepresented the title of Charles Darwin's seminal work, and got his ass paddled soundly for his dumbfuckitude. But rather than apologize, Matthew is back and butt-fucking logic into a coma once again.

Weirdly, Matthew points us at the web site of that cinematic piece of crap, "Expelled," and suggests that it has evidence that PZ "might be trying to hide some skeletons of his own." But one scans that page in vain, trying to figure out what Matthew's point is.

Is it that PZ is ripping that film a new orifice, even though he hasn't seen it yet? That would be deliciously ironic criticism coming from someone who claimed that Darwin's The Origin of species promoted the Holocaust, even though he had never gotten farther than the title of the book. Yes, irony indeed.

Also (and unfortunately for Matthew), while PZ may not have seen the full screening yet, others have, and they've reviewed it in horrendous detail. And given that Stein and the creators of that wretched abortion of a film haven't been shy about pimping it all over the place, one can safely say that anyone who's been paying attention can't possibly not know what the film is about.

In short, Matthew is as arrogantly stupid as ever, but he does at least furnish some entertainment value. Yes, the thought of a well-known associate professor and biologist and renowned defender of biological evolution being called out by someone who has never read even the smallest excerpt of the most famous book on biological evolution ever printed ... well, that's the kind of amusement that money just can't buy.

The Politic
: Because even the retarded kids deserve their own sandbox.

, it's more than a little amusing to see Matthew throwing down a challenge to PZ, and demanding some kind of clarification or retraction. Recall, if you will, that it was Matthew who originally so stupidly and dishonestly accused Darwin of racism simply due to the full title of Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

As numerous readers pointed out, if Matthew had bothered to actually read that book (which he clearly did not), he would have noticed that Darwin was using the word "race" in the sense of a biological variety, applying it to things like horses and vegetables and the like. And, even though Matthew was caught flat-out being a complete fuckwit, he has not to this day offered an apology or retraction for one of the dumbest accusations ever levelled against science.

Let's give PZ the last word, shall we?

A man who can barely read past the title [of Darwin's book] is in no position to make demands for explanations or deplore the unread contents of the book.


, I'm not quite sure what to make of Matthew's suggestion that, regarding that original post of his, "the potty-mouthed Canadian Cynic demonstrated his talent to aid his opponents’ cause more than his own."

Really, Matthew? Is that what I did? I aided your cause more than mine? That's a curious way of looking at it, given the thorough drubbing you took in that comments section.

In fact, unless I've misread something, out of the 70 comments there at the moment, one searches in vain for a single one that comes to your defense until you get to comment 31 -- and that comment is from your equally retarded and dishonest co-blogger Aaron.

In short, Matthew, apart from the other pre-schoolers in your right-wing circle jerk over there, pretty much the entire educated world thinks you're an idiot. And this plays into your hands ... how, exactly?

... there's more!


Lindsay Stewart said...

"the potty-mouthed Canadian Cynic demonstrated his talent to aid his opponents’ cause more than his own."

i believe that indicates that after you've kicked him in the wee berries, his friends feel sorry for him and that's a sort of vindication.

CC said...


I honestly and sincerely don't know how you deal with some as stupid and/or dishonest as Matthew.

Originally, we had Matthew standing there, arms akimbo, stomping his little feet in anger, demanding that readers address one of the stupidest accusations I've ever read. (And that takes some doing, since I've read Dr. Roy.)

His commenters more than adequately took up that challenge and filleted him, hanging the bleeding strips up to dry in the sun. And Matthew's response? Not admitting that he was full of shit but, instead, running away like the cowardly turd that he is and waiting for the memory of that stomping to fade so that he can come back and do it again.

What do you do with someone that retarded? Honestly, I just don't know. And that's why I've said that these people are not be be engaged, they are simply to be mocked.

They have no other value beyond that.

Ti-Guy said...

What do you do with someone that retarded?

It's not just the retardation; in fact, that's human nature. It's the arrogance and the conceit evinced by these types that get me.

I would really like to know who is breeding people like this, here, in Canada, in the 21st century, in the Information Age.

It's inexcusable.

That guy said...

Isn't Myers in the movie, having agreed to be interviewed under what turned out to be false premises? And doesn't that, contra what Matthew implies, sort of give him the right to say nasty things about it without having seen the whole thing? And, if you've read any ID/Creationist stuff, isn't it a fair bet that you'd be able to predict pretty much every single thing that the movie is likely to say anyhow?


I'm with you, CC. I have no idea what to do with these people.

E in MD said...

Simple... You guys ever see Escape from LA?

CC said...

Ironically, Chet, PZ has a brand new post this morning on the rancid dishonesty that is Expelled.

Yes, PZ was one of those interviewed, and you can see what type of sleazy douchebags are the folks behind that movie here. Weirdly, Mark Mathis is exactly the same kind of ignnorant, evasive douche as is Matthew -- unable to address simple issues that are put to him directly.

I'm not kidding -- I have no idea what to do with people who are simultaneously as ignorant and as arrogant as Matthew and the rest of the retards at The Politic.

It's really quite breathtaking.

Jeff, The God of Biscuits said...

Re: potty-mouth

Conservatives are like fainting goats. Naughty words send them plopping down where they stand, rendering them incapable of dealing with any content.

Spidergrackle said...

Thanks, CC. I had heretofore, in blissful ignorance of the depths to which stupidity can be dredged, managed to avoid that web site. My IQ has now been lowered by at least 25 points.

LuLu said...

CC, you appear to have overlooked Matthew's follow-up tantrum to his original post.

Jay said...

CC, just a little information:

Darwin was a racist. That much is fact, but it is also understandable given that at the time everyone was racist. Darwin's racism itself slowly dissolved as he started to fully understand the ramifications of a common origin of life, but it never faded totally.

CC said...


I'd be careful about slinging around accusations of racism, even when they're that carefully qualified.

As you can read here:

"Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion."

So let's be careful out there, shall we?

Connecticut Man1 said...

Inadvertently, you have helped his cause. You gave him one more link to his post. Links are capital. Use them wisely. :)

CC said...


No, I remember well that bit of Matthew's pathetic whining. He really is a pathetic whiner, isn't he?

Did I mention that he whines pathetically?

LuLu said...

How strange, CC. I, too, think Matthew is a pathetic whiner. Who whines. Pathetically.

¢rÄbG®äŠŠ said...

Okay... can anyone give me an example of a pathetic whiner?

LuLu said...

Hi crabby

Jay said...


the term 'racist' as it applies to someone in the past is actually incorrect, and I should have mentioned that with my original post. They are only "racist" with a view from today. They didn't understand their racism then just as conservatives today don't understand their own.

I've read that same passage about Darwin, his humanitarian tendencies really don't get as much airtime as everything else (like the worms!)