Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Roger Ebert: Moron.
In which we learn that movie critic Roger Ebert should stick to his movies and never, ever, ever be allowed near impressionable children. (Although, in all fairness, some people think that piece is the result of a hacked web site. One can only hope.)
AFTERSNERK: PZ covers the same ground, and a number of commenters suggest that this just doesn't sound like Ebert. It does, however, sound like ever creationist I have had the misfortune to encounter, but Ebert might very well be innocent on this one. I'll keep you posted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
What on earth prompted that bizarre column?
Dinosaurs "...walked the earth at the same time as man, but were wiped out by the Flood, whose turbulence buried their bones in non-sequential sediments." HUH?
This is a joke, right?
Yeah, that doesn't sound like Ebert to me either.
I think this might be a tip-off that it's a joke - very subtle though:
Q. Why would God create such an absurd creature as a moose?
A. In charity, we must observe that the moose probably does not seem absurd to itself.
Maybe Roger has been assimilated by Michael Medved. I could see him writing something like this.
I'm a regular reader and fan of Roger Ebert, and I can pretty much guarantee that he's NOT a creationist. But apparently it's not a hack. From his blog:
By Blake on September 21, 2008 9:13 PM
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I'm just wondering why you posted an article pertaining to creationism on your website. Do you feel that it could interfere with your regular line of work?
Ebert: Thought it might be interesting.It is all accurate
By Blake on September 21, 2008 11:17 PM
One more question - what are the sources of your information?
Ebert: Creationist web sites. Do I have anything wrong?
By Blake on September 21, 2008 11:36 PM
I wouldn't know if you were right or wrong. I was taught evolution in school and I have taken no effort to understand creationism.
May I ask why you have decided to believe in creationism and why you have decided to post it on your website today of all days (as opposed to yesterday, a year ago, or a year from tomorrow)?
Ebert: What in the article leads you to think I believe in Creationism?
I have no idea what he's up to.
It would seem to me that Ebert feels the answers are patently ridiculous on their own, an there's no satire to add. "Where did the water go?" "It fled."
10800 mammals on the ark? 600 year old Noah? 5 different lengths for the Flood? Neanderthals that all died of old age an instant after creation?
Sarcasm never works well on the Internet. Myers made reference in his post to Poe's Law and I would say that it unfortunately applies to Mr. Ebert.
I think this might be a tip-off that it's a joke - very subtle though:
Q. Why would God create such an absurd creature as a moose?
A. In charity, we must observe that the moose probably does not seem absurd to itself.
Yeah, that's my conclusion.
If Ebert wanted to pick a ridiculous animal he should have gone with the naked mole-rat.
"In charity, we must observe that the moose probably does not seem absurd to itself."
with that closer, it's gotta be satire.
KEvron
Given that Ebert has been flamed strongly in the last while because he came out fervently and openly against Sarah Palin, I'm presuming this relates to his commentary about her and her beliefs versus her knowledges.
There was little doubt in his earlier article about his opinion of that sort of mentality.
His tongue is so firmly planted in his cheek that it will take hydraulic equipment to get it out.
Oh ye of little....uh...well you know what I mean.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/this_is_the_dawning_of_the_age.html
I'm with The Rev on this one. Faith alone should have informed you that Ebert was in full Poe-mode.
I guess we are just more cynical that way.
Post a Comment