also, if you want to do apples-to-apples comparisons of Religilous with other documentaries, you should compare it to Ben Stein's Expelled. Both were created and hosted by ideologues with an obvious agenda and are targeted to specific audiences.

Expelled
Opening Weekend: $2,970,848
(1,052 theaters, $2,824 average)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm

Religilous
Opening Weekend: $3,409,643
(502 theaters, $6,792 average)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=religulous.htm

10/6/2008 11:30:20 PM

^you honestly think trolls care about legit comparisons? where's the fun in that?

10/6/2008 11:48:34 PM

Um. . .the "smote" thing was just a joke, feral and agentlyin--should've been obvious. And I wouldn't say that a release date of April for Expelled and a release date of October for Religulous is exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

I haven't seen Expelled either, but I would point out that it received a B- from BOM graders, and Religulous--so far--has only gotten a C.

10/7/2008 12:50:30 AM

fortunate for you that anytime your points are countered, you dismiss them as having been jokes and imply a lack of understanding.

Quote :

"I haven't seen Expelled either, but I would point out that it received a B- from BOM graders, and Religulous--so far--has only gotten a C."

I guess he has you beat, agentlion, by literally fractions of a point!!!!!!!!!

10/7/2008 12:58:12 AM

I intend to see the movie, though I admit:

A) Haven't seen it yet, and
B) Don't intend to actually pay to see it

But I have seen some of Maher's interviews, and I've seen plenty of the preview material. And based on that -- the interviews in particular -- Maher seems like one of the many anti-religion wolfwebbers on this site, with slightly better use of sarcastic inflection.

On The Daily Show, he went through this whole rant -- to great applause -- about the God/Jesus relationship, about how they're different people but actually the same people, and so on, and so forth. I laughed. I also laughed months and months ago when South Park's Mr(s). Garrison explained evolution to his class in terms of "a monkey fucking a fish-frog" or some such. Both cases involved a person blinded to alternative points of view simplifying their opponent's position to such a point that it became universally laughable.

The film may end up being much deeper than simply retelling religious stories in the way that sounds funniest. But so far, I've just seen what Maher is selling the film as, and it's not promising.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 1:35 AM. Reason : ]

10/7/2008 1:34:50 AM

Quote :

"I haven't seen Expelled either, but I would point out that it received a B- from BOM graders, and Religulous--so far--has only gotten a C."

Let me get this straight.... You want to compare the quality of these films by the ratings of random people logged into one website? Seriously?

well IMDB users gave Expelled a 3.6 and Religulous a 7.2

it's absolutely meaningless to compare movies this way

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 1:36 AM. Reason : .]

10/7/2008 1:35:49 AM

Quote :

"Both cases involved a person blinded to alternative points of view simplifying their opponent's position to such a point that it became universally laughable. "

This is what most churches do with their OWN doctrines.

You're not going to walk in to the average church and find meaningful or serious approach to the philosophies or analysis of their beliefs.

It's just "god said don't steal... and oh yeah, evolution probably not true either (because if it was, we'd have to explain the history behind the stories in the bible which is too learn-y for you all)".

If religion-as-the-public knows it were actually about anything serious, it wouldn't be so easy to mock.

10/7/2008 2:03:34 AM

Quote :

"This is what most churches people do with their OWN doctrines."

In fact, it's what pretty much everybody with a "doctrine" does, and that includes plenty of secularists. There are plenty of professors/teachers who have an ideology they do the same thing with. Of course, there's also plenty that can be reasonable about it -- and the same can be said for religious figures. I've met enough of each who fit into both categories. When I think of how evolution was explained by some of my teachers...::shudder:: And this, by people who believed in it.

The thing is, the "average church" is just like the "average person" -- kinda stupid, when you get down to it. If all the churches that spewed a bunch of retardation went away tomorrow, their followers would probably end up following some other retardation -- Marxism, big-L Libertarianism, Futurism, whatever your take is on what's stupid, plenty of stupid people would end up there. Some would end up in "above-average church," in part just by chance. It happens.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 2:20 AM. Reason : ]

10/7/2008 2:19:50 AM

Bill Maher, Bigot

Quote :

"During an episode of 'Politically Incorrect,' Maher's former talk-show, that [Gary Bauer] participated in some years ago, he referred to Mother Theresa as 'a whore.'"

Quote :

"Merriam Webster defines 'bigot' as: 'One who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.' Bill Maher, who once bragged 'I have hated the church way before anyone else,' is a bigot by any definition. Thought experiment: Let's ponder what would have happened if Bill Maher had said he hates gay people. When ex-NBA star Tim Hardaway said exactly that, he was flogged by the press, officially banished by the NBA (for which he was a spokesman) and forced to apologize repeatedly. Maher believes he can get away with such overt bigotry under the pretext of 'creative license.' As Maher said in his non-apology apology: 'Now first of all, it was a joke, during a comedic context…' And when the Catholic League confronted HBO about why it continues to give Maher airtime, the station insisted that his anti-Catholicism was a matter of 'creative freedom.' Needless to say, such 'creative freedom' would not be extended to those who make racist, anti-gay or anti-Muslim remarks. Ask Don Imus."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26218

Yeah, Maher's very open-minded.

10/7/2008 5:07:38 PM

You should be more open-minded is the point.

10/7/2008 5:21:58 PM

can we do something about this fucking troll?

in entertainment of all places

fuck off gramps

10/7/2008 5:22:48 PM

^ I'm offering legitimate replies to the topic. You, on the other hand, have nothing to offer other than whining, which is typical, infant.

Get off my nuts and back on topic or GTFO.

10/7/2008 5:31:09 PM

Yeah, my point was that you don't sound open minded. If you read my entire post you'll see that i noted Bill Maher hates organized religion. However, from what I've heard, that's not what this movie is about. It's more about asking questions than just blasting someone's religious beliefs. I could be wrong, I'll know for sure later this week when I see it.

10/7/2008 5:46:49 PM

Thought it was hilarious, but he doesn't get away from the "I hate religion" stuff as much as he would like you to think.

10/7/2008 5:49:53 PM

Dearest hooksaw,
In Entertainment, we act like grown-ups. You're in time-out until you can do that.
luv,
Jon

10/7/2008 6:14:09 PM

Quote :

"You're in time-out until you can do that."

So he's gone forever?

10/7/2008 6:41:51 PM

It was really funny. They even went to Raleigh.

Most of the time was just asking questions and reporting what people believe. And I'd say it beautifully showed that if you don't question what you want to believe, you can believe anything, no matter how absurd or harmful the content.

10/7/2008 6:44:16 PM

i really want to see this but i'm kind of out in BFE until the end of oct.

how long will this hang around in the theaters?

10/7/2008 7:05:44 PM

Probably not till the end of October. But you'll still be able to check it out on DVD

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 8:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2008 8:15:39 PM

Quote :

"Maher believes he can get away with such overt bigotry under the pretext of 'creative license.' As Maher said in his non-apology apology: 'Now first of all, it was a joke, during a comedic context…'"

you are falling into a common trap. it's generally frowned upon for people to make fun of things that other people have no control over - gender, race, sexual orientation, handicaps, etc. After all, none of those things are those peoples "fault's"
But conscious decisions people make, like choosing to worship X made-up deity, are completely in the free for derision and ridicule.

10/7/2008 8:37:58 PM

agreed (and I am a Christian). I don't see much of a reason to make this movie but it certainly doesnt upset me. I don't get excited to watch movies like this though (From either side) so I won't be seeing it unless I see it for free at some point.

10/8/2008 8:32:20 AM

I'm kind of excited to see it personally. Especially since you who have seen it have said that they actually did just simply ask the questions and show the answers(mostly). I was born and raised Catholic (even went to our church's school all the way through middle school), and I honestly ask a lot of questions about what they believe. Especially with how they treat certain people, as my friend was told he would be excommunicated for being gay (so stupid nowadays).

In any case I think if you can't handle someone questioning why you believe it, then maybe you just aren't comfortable or knowledgeable of what it is you believe. If you don't like the person asking the quesiton, it doesn't make the question any less valid or sound.

Comparing the movie to other movies is also kind of useless, I prefer to let each movie stand on its own. Just because a kids movie about dogs did better doesn't mean I would want to go see it, and doesn't necessarily make it any better. Just like the fact that there are more Christians in the world instead of Buddhists doesn't mean Buddhism is bad. It's just different and appeals to a different audience. A little thought and understanding can go a long way sometimes.

10/8/2008 12:09:59 PM

I saw it last night and thought it was pretty funny. The very end of the movie, however, was vomit-inducingly preachy. It's like he spends 95 minutes saying you should think for yourself, then caps it off with three or four minutes of THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD THINK.

But yeah, it was funny.

10/9/2008 7:20:56 AM

i am going to play ignorant guy and comment w/out seeing the movie:

based on all the press, including reviews, previews and interviews with bill maher and larry charles, i just ahve to say,

hasnt this been done 1000 times already? maybe not in a method meant to be funny, but is it a comedy or is it a documentary

b/c movies like "Friends of God" and "The God Who Wasnt There" have presumably already covered these topics

10/9/2008 7:43:41 AM

It's a funny documentary. And I think the depth and breadth of religion's reach in basically every culture on Earth is reason enough more more than one documentary on the subject. And while it seems that both of those films deal exclusively with Christianity, this, while it's primarily about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, also covers Scientology, Mormonism, and some dude in Amsterdam who worships pot.

10/9/2008 7:48:41 AM

Quote :

"^ 1. Because, as I've made abundantly clear, Bill Maher is a massive douche bag."

You never made anything abundantly clear. One clip, then continuous repetition of the same claim (douchebaggery) does not constitute "abundant." It constitutes cherry-picking and then arguing in the manner of a two-year old, that is, not arguing at all, but asserting:

"Is not"
"Is too!"
"Is not!"
"Is too!"

10/9/2008 9:33:17 AM

Saw this tonight with a friend of mine that's muslim and a friend that's agnostic. Overall I think they both enjoyed it. I really liked the questions he asked because for the most part he didn't seem like he was trying to slam anyone's religion. However, as spöokyjon and I'm sure others pointed out, the end was more of a typical rant of his saying why religion is evil and why we need to all take a stand to get everyone to think like him. Maher never bothered to mention the good things religion has brought people. Or the fact that most of the people he interviewed appeared happy and content with their lives, not hostile (except the guy in Raleigh, NC). One of my friends also mentioned that a lot of the people he interviewed seemed crazy or not among the majority of their religion.

But overall it was entertaining with the exception of the very end message of which I really disagree. The comedic quips accompanied by the cuts to random clips of entertainment media was something just about everyone in the audience seemed to enjoy. I would recommend seeing this film even if you don't agree with Bill Maher's views because it is an interesting look at different religions and their impact in modern society.

10/9/2008 11:20:05 PM

Funniest moment of the movie was when Maher made the pot guy jump off the couch.

10/9/2008 11:36:27 PM

^^^ Well, if you'll just apply your obviously massive brainpan to explain how this. . .

Quote :

"'religious' + 'ridiculous' = Religulous"

. . .is an open-minded premise, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Oops! I guess we're back under the wonderfully protective umbrella of "comedic context"! How convenient!

And the Maher-is-a-douche-bag thing was my opinion--this should've been obvious. I'm allowed to make entertainment choices based on personal preferences, you know.

BTW, I'm going to premise my argument with you in this fashion:

redburn + "ridiculous" = redburniculous

This is totally cool, right?

10/10/2008 1:57:38 AM

^I believe what redburn was saying is that your opinion isnt really a valid reason for others to not see this movie.

It also comes to what you think he means by the title as to how upset you get. I'm sure he didn't mean it exactly like I read it but, I personally feel like it's a good way to express how I feel about people that follow blindly without really knowing what they are putting their faith into. Honestly if you're going to be religious you should make an effort to define for yourself what you really believe. (example: is the bible word for word true or not?, are scriptures not included in the bible not worth believing in and why?, etc.) There are a LOT of people who don't really know.

10/10/2008 9:45:07 AM

^ Um. . .(1) what, pray tell (Ha!), does a movie critic offer you other than his or her opinion? (2) If I believe a person to be a bigot, which I do in Maher's case, can I not recommend against seeing a film made by such a person based on his bigotry? And (3) do you "really know" what you "really believe" as this belief system relates to science? Do you not take anything within the realm of science on faith? Really?!

Taking Science on Faith

Quote :

"SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term 'doubting Thomas' well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue. The problem with this neat separation into 'non-overlapping magisteria,' as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified."

Quote :

"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence. This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe."

Quote :

"In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

Paul Davies is the director of Beyond, a research center at Arizona State University, and the author of 'Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?pagewanted=1

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 6:12 PM. Reason : PS: redburniculous! ]

10/10/2008 6:06:55 PM

You are a fucking idiot.

10/11/2008 5:23:55 AM

Quote :

"All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed."

Every action you ever take relies on the same assumptions.

10/11/2008 8:09:27 AM

arronburro continuously makes that same argument, and it's a lame one.
"OMG, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS REALLY REAL?" It honestly sounds like a 16 year old getting high for the first time and getting "really deep" with the universe.

So, look - if you want to say that science is based on the "faith" what 1) seeing is believing, and 2) there is some kind of underlying structure and order to everything in the universe, then fine - count me in as a fundamentalist. I'm as faithful as they come.

But you have to be completely out in left field to equate that kind of faith to the faith that there are invisible men in the sky listening to your thoughts and shaping the actions on Earth with their invisible hands.

10/11/2008 9:04:15 AM

Quote :

"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence. "

You realize that Maher claims to be an agnostic, and would not disagree with this statement?

He is not trying to really disassemble all religion, he's more focused on organized religion that convinces people to say and do stupid things.

10/11/2008 12:51:42 PM

Quote :

"The very end of the movie, however, was vomit-inducingly preachy."

The movie lost all merit to me at this point, it was almost laughable how serious he took himself at the end. Did I miss a joke? Nuclear explosions and hellfire.... come on.

10/11/2008 1:04:16 PM

Quote :

"Nuclear explosions and hellfire.... come on."

haven't the movie, but.... are you serious?

9/11, anyone?
We've spent millions of $ trying to prevent Islamic extremist from getting nuclear weapons..... why? Maybe it's because they will use their religion as an excuse to kill people with nuclear bomb, eh?

Ever heard of The End of Days and the war in Israel? People who believe in The End of Days (Bush, Palin, to name a couple) actually believe that there will be a war to end all wars in the Middle East to usher in the Second Coming. You can guarantee if this war ever happens, nukes will be flying left and right.

10/11/2008 1:27:39 PM

I saw it

it was good

Bill Maher is a prick as usual

10/11/2008 11:31:50 PM

^^

There's a difference between terrorists and the average person that practices religion. Go see the movie and you will realize how ridiculous the last 10 minutes are.

10/12/2008 1:10:38 AM

somebody please terminate this thread

10/13/2008 1:10:01 AM

Quote :

"You are a fucking idiot."

Azaka + "ridiculous" = Azakadiculous

+

I hope you get suspended.

Quote :

"arronburro continuously makes that same argument, and it's a lame one."

Quote :

"It honestly sounds like a 16 year old getting high for the first time and getting 'really deep' with the universe."

Quote :

"So, look - if you want to say that science is based on the 'faith' what 1) seeing is believing, and 2) there is some kind of underlying structure and order to everything in the universe, then fine - count me in as a fundamentalist. I'm as faithful as they come."

agentlion

Concerning the first and second quotations, take this up with Paul Davies--director of Beyond, a research center at Arizona State University, and the author of Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life.

Concerning the third quotation, thanks for finally admitting that you worship in the temple of science--and that you take much of what science purports on faith.

Quote :

"You realize that Maher claims to be an agnostic, and would not disagree with this statement? He is not trying to really disassemble all religion, he's more focused on organized religion that convinces people to say and do stupid things."

moron

Really?

Quote :

"[A] few days before Pope Benedict XVI's visit to America, TV talk show host Bill Maher went on a profanity-laden tirade against the Pope and the Catholic Church. On his HBO Real Time program, Maher claimed that the Pope 'used to be a Nazi,' and called the Catholic Church a 'child-abusing religious cult' and 'the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia.'"

Quote :

"In truth, while the media were largely silent about his bigotry, Maher did offer an apology, of sorts. On a later show, Maher conceded, 'Ok, you got me, the Pope was not a Nazi.' That's true. As a young boy, Benedict, then Joseph Ratzinger, was forcibly conscripted into the German Youth organization, as all German boys were."

Quote :

"Bill Maher, who once bragged 'I have hated the church way before anyone else,' is a bigot by any definition."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26218

"religious" + "ridiculous" = Religulous



[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 2:48 AM. Reason : .]

10/13/2008 2:47:04 AM

I'm sorry hooksaw, but anybody who has a U2 lyric in their info automatically has their opinion rejected.

10/13/2008 3:01:45 AM

Quote :

"somebody please terminate this thread"

Quote :

"I'm sorry hooksaw, but anybody who has a U2 lyric in their info automatically has their opinion rejected."

parentcanpay

Is there even one original thread-related reply rattling around in your undoubtedly cavernous skull? Just one--and I'm pulling for you.

10/13/2008 3:18:00 AM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186756&title=bill-maher-pt.-2
@15s
Maher: "I'm not atheist... i just don't know"

10/13/2008 3:32:51 AM

Why Bill Maher Made Me Laugh
by Dinesh D'Souza

Quote :

"Bill Maher is a very irritating fellow. Now surely he would say that he irritates people because he is so iconoclastic, shattering entrenched orthodoxies with his rapier wit, but the truth is that Maher is offensive because he has an offensive personality. He seems chronically unable to wipe the smug arrogant smile off his face, which is especially galling because this arrogance is entirely unsubstantiated by intellectual ability. Even Maher's humor seems, well, gratuitous and condescending. His is not the wry, gentle wit of Jay Leno or Jerry Seinfeld. Nor does he exhibit the outrageous, side-splitting humor of George Carlin or Richard Pryor. Rather, Maher employs his trademark sneer to poke snide, sarcastic fun at people, usually people who are markedly less sophisticated or culturally established or economically well off than he is."

Quote :

"Maher's stance in the film alternates between feigned investigative neutrality and unconcealed anti-religious bigotry. At times he says he is an agnostic, who simply holds the rational position that he doesn't know what comes after death. But if you don't know whether there is an afterlife, and even if you have no reason to believe in one, it hardly makes sense to attack those who hold a different view. After all, you yourself are in the dark and they might very well be right."

Quote :

"By way of analogy, I don't believe in unicorns, because there is no evidence for them, but I haven't written any books called 'The Unicorn Delusion' or 'Unicorns are Not Great' or made any documentaries denouncing unicorns. Maher's agnosticism is clearly a pose. Like Christopher Hitchens, he is an 'anti-theist' who hates the Christian God. And the main reason seems to be, as Maher himself says at one point, that this God has rules that interfere with Maher's sex life."

Quote :

"Maher scores his best points when he is interviewing certified weirdos and borderline lunatics. . . ."

Quote :

"You get the picture: Maher is in search of weak opponents that he can embarrass. Still, it's remarkable how many of them get the better of him."

Quote :

"In another segment, Maher talks to some blue collar guys worshipping at a Trucker's Chapel in Raleigh, North Carolina. They are overweight and poorly dressed and they cannot answer all his questions, but one says that he used to be a drug addict and 'I gave all that up when I got saved.' At the end of the discussion, just before Maher's triumphant exit, the truckers hold hands and pray for Maher. This is the sole moving moment in the film, and in a way that Maher doesn't realize, it raises these simple people entirely above his snide sophistication."

Quote :

"I would love to debate him on his show, and can easily show that Maher's self-image as an intellectual is largely bogus. It is only in the company of obvious charlatans and simpletons that Maher comes off as the bright guy. And because he cannot stand up to real opposition, I doubt that Maher has the guts to take me up on this offer. Ultimately he is an intellectual coward who relies on the argumentum ad ignorantium—the argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience. So should you see 'Religulous'? Certainly, if you want to put a few dollars in Bill Maher's pocket. (Very few others are doing so.) I found 'Religulous' good for some chuckles, even though most of the time I was laughing not with Maher, but at him."

http://tinyurl.com/3pfk8u

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 6:26 AM. Reason : PS: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!1 ]

10/13/2008 6:22:50 AM

oh, wow, you showed up.
Really. burned.

10/13/2008 7:59:06 AM

Quote :

"So should you see 'Religulous'? Certainly, if you want to put a few dollars in Bill Maher's pocket. (Very few others are doing so.)"

Religulous has done about $12,000 per screen in the time (less than two weeks) it's been out. That's far above average for an independent movie of this size.

Bill Maher is absolutely a king-sized douchebag and, hilariously, the worst part about his own movie. Everybody on the planet knows he's a smarmy asshole. What's far, far better is when he just lets people talk about religion, which is 90% of the movie.

And, seriously, everybody needs to refrain from the petty name calling in this thread. Y'all know how to ackrite.

10/13/2008 9:05:32 AM

hooksaw

Quote :

"^ Um. . .(1) what, pray tell (Ha!), does a movie critic offer you other than his or her opinion? (2) If I believe a person to be a bigot, which I do in Maher's case, can I not recommend against seeing a film made by such a person based on his bigotry? And (3) do you "really know" what you "really believe" as this belief system relates to science? Do you not take anything within the realm of science on faith? Really?! "

What do you really know? I never said i believed in science. I also never said I trusted a critic, or that critics were worth their weight in shit. I prefer to make up my own mind about what movies I see, the same way I make up my own mind about what I think. Not to metion that recommending a movie or not only takes one reply. This many replies and I would have to conclude that you are just lonely.

10/13/2008 9:37:09 AM

dubus + "ridiculous" = dubusiculous

10/14/2008 2:11:24 AM

Dinesh D'Souza is a joke. I'm surprised he has the gall to say this: " Ultimately he is an intellectual coward who relies on the argumentum ad ignorantium—the argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience" when, at best, he's in the same boat.

10/14/2008 2:15:38 AM