For several months, Ray Comfort has been brewing yet another product to make evangelicals spend a wad of cash on, so it can find it's way in campuses all over North America.
Since he's pretty much ridiculed, debunked and ripped to shreds for his support of creationism, the good people at living waters ministries decided to go with another angle; the issue of abortion.
And in order to avoid a backlash like he suffered last time with the "Origins In schools", he tried to keep this even hush-hush.
He failed. Some of us knew for months what was brewing. Like the idiot he is, he did the mistake of putting the video and site on Living water's servers, thinking no one would notice.
From the site http://www.heartchanger.com:
This website was passed on to you in confidence. The “180” video is meant for your personal previewing only.
You are not permitted to pass on this website address and password to anyone without written consent from Living Waters.
If you desire to share “180” with others, please request permission (specifying who you would like to share it with) by emailing heartchanger@livingwaters.com Thank you for understanding the sensitive nature of this project.
What are you going to do with “180”?
We will be giving away 250,000 copies of the DVD in 100 of the top U.S. universities (in one day) in the fall of 2011, and invite pro-life organizations, churches, and individuals to join us by having giveaways in their own areas.
If you guys want to see this crap-fest and debunk it early, here are some links;
http://vimeo.com/24923744
Password: heartchanger
(Ray is so unoriginal).
Have fun with it. Debunking this is like shooting fish with a thermonuclear warhead.
FYI: the universities hit will be the same that were hit with "Origins in schools" if they were there last time, they will be there a second time around.
W01F
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
How Ray Comfort has failed his bethren
It's no secret that Ray Comfort has it in for Atheism. His entire ministry is dedicated to disprove Atheists, the theory of evolution and pursuing Richard Dawkins.
Since 2006, he has been on a heavy campaign to try to use social media and the use of viral marketing to promote his brand of evangelism.
And what did each attempt give him? Nothing but a list of failures. Do keep in mind, that when I mean "failure" I mean he has failed is objective due to the advantage he gave his critics (Atheists and Christians who simply don't want to be associated with that charlatan). Here is an abridged list of his most famous failures.
The Atheist's nightmare: The Banana.
What was supposed to happen: The most famous of his failures, earning him the nickname "Banana man". He stipulated that the banana was a perfect example of intelligent design until it was demonstrated that the banana was a product of agriculture.
What ended up happening: His banana video was the most parodied of his works. He later did an "apology" video, but the tone in it as you will see, was half-hearted and only served to aggravate his critics by insinuating Atheist gave him a platform. That also was turned to ridicule. A simple retraction would have sufficed and ended it but even in an apology, he fails.
Banana apology:
The Crocoduck.
What was supposed to happen: Kirk Cameron, a "partner" of Ray Comfort, used the illustration of the crocoduck, in an attempt to ridicule the theory of evolution, the crocoduck stipulates that if there are transitional forms then there should be a crocoduck. This in turn would prove evolution to be erroneous.
What ended up happening: Even Christians started to laugh at Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Their credibility went down to nil even among evangelicals, save for a small minority who are part of his "Ambassador's Alliance".
Atheist Central
What was supposed to happen: The object of his blog being an "Atheist Central" where he would put articles and then Atheists would rapidely debunk his claptrap, and he would then quote them in his next book.
What ended up happening: Due to his unfortunate habit to be censor-happy and overzealous moderators, this lead to sites like WeareSMRT.com to be born and other to compile not only the posts on his blog that were erased, but also the articles that were edited or deleted that were 'too embarrassing' that were written by Ray Comfort.
http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/
What was supposed to happen: This site was supposed to be the end-all to all Atheists. The site was supposed to prepare Christians to be able to answer Atheists with every little question we had and it served as a shameless promotion for his books.
What ended up happening: This site died in less than a month and was never heard of again. it is still online, but with zero activity on it.
ABC Nightline Faceoff Ray Comfort VS Rational Response Squad.
What was supposed to happen: Accepting to go on National TV with Kirk Cameron to face Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor to debate the existence of God, he had hoped that he could preach his gospel message to millions watching.
What ended up happening: Due to his inability to debate properly and his attempt at hijacking the format of a debate, he made an ass of himself on national tv, and made the word "Atheist" a household name. His attempt at a "coup comptee" by having Todd Friel ambush Brian Sapient afterwards only demonstrated his dishonesty even further.
Ray Comfort VS Thunderf00t.
What was supposed to happen: Youtube User Thunderf00t and Ray Comfort dialogging and having an exchange of ideas.
What ended up happening: Ray, being a money-hungry little bastard, sought to commercialize the dialog as a debate. He made it into a DVD and tried to pass it as a "Debate"
Due to the fact that Thunderf00t had posted a copy of the discussion on his channel (which was duplicated numerous times on youtube) the sales were downright poor.
The "Origins In Schools" campaign.
What was supposed to happen: Another campaign that made alot of noise. Ray, after finding out that the "Origins of the species" by Charles Darwin was public domain, he sought to print out a copy with an introduction made by him, supporting intelligent design and distribute it across North America in every university.
What ended up happening: An uproar among the Atheist community is what happened. Normally that would have fallen in Ray's favor, but he didn't predict the backlash that would occur, not only from the Atheist community, but also from other Christians who actually do not reject science.
So strong was the backlash, that Rather than distribute it on Nov 19th as he had advertised, he had to do it a day early to avoid the counter-protests and by doing so, demonstrated two things.
1) He was indeed spooked by the backlash.
2) Alot of money had been spent on this venture. It was financially draining to do such a huge give-away. By buckling down and acting spooked, he had just sent a message to his financial backers: "I am a liability".
So from all these failures, what can we conclude? Well for one, from all his ventures, not a single Atheist was converted because of his antics. All this money, all this effort, has proven for naught.
Also, if you were an investor in a business, and you saw that much capital being wasted, you wouldn't want to give that money to an organization that squanders in on things that don't work or end up being the fodder for really bad decisions.
W01F
Since 2006, he has been on a heavy campaign to try to use social media and the use of viral marketing to promote his brand of evangelism.
And what did each attempt give him? Nothing but a list of failures. Do keep in mind, that when I mean "failure" I mean he has failed is objective due to the advantage he gave his critics (Atheists and Christians who simply don't want to be associated with that charlatan). Here is an abridged list of his most famous failures.
The Atheist's nightmare: The Banana.
What was supposed to happen: The most famous of his failures, earning him the nickname "Banana man". He stipulated that the banana was a perfect example of intelligent design until it was demonstrated that the banana was a product of agriculture.
What ended up happening: His banana video was the most parodied of his works. He later did an "apology" video, but the tone in it as you will see, was half-hearted and only served to aggravate his critics by insinuating Atheist gave him a platform. That also was turned to ridicule. A simple retraction would have sufficed and ended it but even in an apology, he fails.
Banana apology:
The Crocoduck.
What was supposed to happen: Kirk Cameron, a "partner" of Ray Comfort, used the illustration of the crocoduck, in an attempt to ridicule the theory of evolution, the crocoduck stipulates that if there are transitional forms then there should be a crocoduck. This in turn would prove evolution to be erroneous.
What ended up happening: Even Christians started to laugh at Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Their credibility went down to nil even among evangelicals, save for a small minority who are part of his "Ambassador's Alliance".
Atheist Central
What was supposed to happen: The object of his blog being an "Atheist Central" where he would put articles and then Atheists would rapidely debunk his claptrap, and he would then quote them in his next book.
What ended up happening: Due to his unfortunate habit to be censor-happy and overzealous moderators, this lead to sites like WeareSMRT.com to be born and other to compile not only the posts on his blog that were erased, but also the articles that were edited or deleted that were 'too embarrassing' that were written by Ray Comfort.
http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/
What was supposed to happen: This site was supposed to be the end-all to all Atheists. The site was supposed to prepare Christians to be able to answer Atheists with every little question we had and it served as a shameless promotion for his books.
What ended up happening: This site died in less than a month and was never heard of again. it is still online, but with zero activity on it.
ABC Nightline Faceoff Ray Comfort VS Rational Response Squad.
What was supposed to happen: Accepting to go on National TV with Kirk Cameron to face Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor to debate the existence of God, he had hoped that he could preach his gospel message to millions watching.
What ended up happening: Due to his inability to debate properly and his attempt at hijacking the format of a debate, he made an ass of himself on national tv, and made the word "Atheist" a household name. His attempt at a "coup comptee" by having Todd Friel ambush Brian Sapient afterwards only demonstrated his dishonesty even further.
Ray Comfort VS Thunderf00t.
What was supposed to happen: Youtube User Thunderf00t and Ray Comfort dialogging and having an exchange of ideas.
What ended up happening: Ray, being a money-hungry little bastard, sought to commercialize the dialog as a debate. He made it into a DVD and tried to pass it as a "Debate"
Due to the fact that Thunderf00t had posted a copy of the discussion on his channel (which was duplicated numerous times on youtube) the sales were downright poor.
The "Origins In Schools" campaign.
What was supposed to happen: Another campaign that made alot of noise. Ray, after finding out that the "Origins of the species" by Charles Darwin was public domain, he sought to print out a copy with an introduction made by him, supporting intelligent design and distribute it across North America in every university.
What ended up happening: An uproar among the Atheist community is what happened. Normally that would have fallen in Ray's favor, but he didn't predict the backlash that would occur, not only from the Atheist community, but also from other Christians who actually do not reject science.
So strong was the backlash, that Rather than distribute it on Nov 19th as he had advertised, he had to do it a day early to avoid the counter-protests and by doing so, demonstrated two things.
1) He was indeed spooked by the backlash.
2) Alot of money had been spent on this venture. It was financially draining to do such a huge give-away. By buckling down and acting spooked, he had just sent a message to his financial backers: "I am a liability".
So from all these failures, what can we conclude? Well for one, from all his ventures, not a single Atheist was converted because of his antics. All this money, all this effort, has proven for naught.
Also, if you were an investor in a business, and you saw that much capital being wasted, you wouldn't want to give that money to an organization that squanders in on things that don't work or end up being the fodder for really bad decisions.
W01F
Sunday, March 6, 2011
KISS MY I.C.E.
Recently I found out about the American Government's ICE has been doing crackdowns on a new breed of "criminal".
It's not border-hoppers or drug cartels from South America. Nope. It's people who give access to streams on the internet for tv shows and movies.
That's right, you heard me. ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of the U.S. government now plays cybercop if you so much decide to stream videos or even link to those who do.
Brian McCarthy, the 32-year old alleged operator of Channelsurfing.net, had a nice visit from ICE and associates for "Criminal Copyright infringement" even though his site only links to other content (that is, it doesn't host the infringing sports broadcasts itself).
So for the "crime" of linking people to another site and allowing people to look at copyrighted content, he gets the book thrown at him, practically on the same level as your garden variety of crook, like a car thief or a drug dealer.
Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.
While I can understand the whole copyright issue (And it is part of my reason I refuse to watch mainstream media of anykind). Is it really ICE's job to be the corporations' little bitch?
This is a ridiculous trial, based on a ridiculous policy pushed by corporate lobbyists.
Of course, there is a solution to the problem. It's pretty similar to the way I solved my "software" problem at home. When I got tired of Microsoft's outlandish prices and policies, I switched to Linux. Why? Because I found freedom in the idea that my computer was mine and I didn't have to answer to some asshole who thought that my machine was their's because of shyster's trick and some licensing.
Well the same can be achieved with media. Creative commons and public domain media are the solution to this "copyright" issue. We got well over 100 years of film history now. Alot of it is released in the public domain.
Same with some music and alot of bands release some songs as creative commons. With these two combined, I was able to watch a multitude of old movies that were released and I discovered bands that were not mainstream but kicked ass.
I mean with the garbage that is released in the theaters and the dime-a-dozen artists that are being peddled by the music labels, do I really want to face prosecution of any kind over mediocrity? The answer is NO!!
So to you big record labels and media moguls, the only thing I have left to say, is this.
KISS MY I.C.E. !!
It's not border-hoppers or drug cartels from South America. Nope. It's people who give access to streams on the internet for tv shows and movies.
That's right, you heard me. ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of the U.S. government now plays cybercop if you so much decide to stream videos or even link to those who do.
Brian McCarthy, the 32-year old alleged operator of Channelsurfing.net, had a nice visit from ICE and associates for "Criminal Copyright infringement" even though his site only links to other content (that is, it doesn't host the infringing sports broadcasts itself).
So for the "crime" of linking people to another site and allowing people to look at copyrighted content, he gets the book thrown at him, practically on the same level as your garden variety of crook, like a car thief or a drug dealer.
Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.
While I can understand the whole copyright issue (And it is part of my reason I refuse to watch mainstream media of anykind). Is it really ICE's job to be the corporations' little bitch?
This is a ridiculous trial, based on a ridiculous policy pushed by corporate lobbyists.
Of course, there is a solution to the problem. It's pretty similar to the way I solved my "software" problem at home. When I got tired of Microsoft's outlandish prices and policies, I switched to Linux. Why? Because I found freedom in the idea that my computer was mine and I didn't have to answer to some asshole who thought that my machine was their's because of shyster's trick and some licensing.
Well the same can be achieved with media. Creative commons and public domain media are the solution to this "copyright" issue. We got well over 100 years of film history now. Alot of it is released in the public domain.
Same with some music and alot of bands release some songs as creative commons. With these two combined, I was able to watch a multitude of old movies that were released and I discovered bands that were not mainstream but kicked ass.
I mean with the garbage that is released in the theaters and the dime-a-dozen artists that are being peddled by the music labels, do I really want to face prosecution of any kind over mediocrity? The answer is NO!!
So to you big record labels and media moguls, the only thing I have left to say, is this.
KISS MY I.C.E. !!
Monday, February 21, 2011
RANT: Corporate dress codes are an anachronism
I want to talk to you about something that is irritating to all who have to work in a corporate environment.
I am talking about the "corporate look". I am talking about the myth of the professional attire. I am so sick of hearing about the corporate dress code and how it allegedly looks "professional".
Why does a suit mean "professional" in the first place? When was this decided?
Well I started to look into the origins of the three-piece suit. Something bothered me about it, and the origins of the three piece suit needed to be clearly identified. I hoped that by learning of it's origin, I could identify the reasons why a suit is considered professional.
Well in my research, I find out some rather interesting. The modern suit appeared in the early 19th century. In fact, save for a few variations in material and cuts, the suit hasn't changed all that much
And also it was associated with the upper-class. Meaning that the reason that we considers suits to be professional, is in reality a remnant of a belief that if you look like the upper-class you will be part of the upper-class.
And since it was enforced by businesses and the like, it became a form of unspoken tradition. A tradition based on the aesthetic mimicry.
And therefore the argument for the suit being professional, is really an argument to tradition. Therefore is should be seen as nothing more but a logical fallacy, that restricts no only creative thinking, but also would enforce a lack of functionality on your attire.
But that wouldn't be enough to convince the modern work-place to change it's view on the matter. So I have given some thought as to how one should approach the problem of a workplace that tends to bend to such antiquated views on what is worn and how they could convince the workplace they are in, to relax their dress-code hold.
1) Three piece suits are costly to the individual, as the market and after-market have fees of maintenance of these expensive attire. Dry cleaning, tailoring and the companies that sell these suits are expensive. The T.O.C. (Total Ownership Cost) force workers to ask of raises as to keep the image up, and it cost the company time (Leaving work early so they can balance trips to the cleaner's and non-work like).
2) The suit doesn't fit the needs of the modern work-place when you need to keep your tools on yourself at all times. Where are the pockets to keep your data drives, your pda's and other tools of the modern workplace on a three piece suit? Also, It is not designed for people who need to be active. It suffers from from that design flaw. Dress shoes FAIL to provide the proper support to a person's feet. they are ill-designed.
3) More and more people are getting tired of people in suits, because they have learned to identify it not with professionalism, but with people who have used appearances to mask gross incompetence (Think POLITICIANS). People who do make that association, are usually clients, and we don't want to alienate the profit margin now do we?
Mind you, you won't win. But if we slowly chip at them slowly, eventually we will be just as professional in a hoodie and sweatpants as we are in a three-piece suit. Why? Because at that point the whole "professionalism" bit will no longer stem from appearances but from the quality of service rendered as it should have been in the first place.
w01F
I am talking about the "corporate look". I am talking about the myth of the professional attire. I am so sick of hearing about the corporate dress code and how it allegedly looks "professional".
Why does a suit mean "professional" in the first place? When was this decided?
Well I started to look into the origins of the three-piece suit. Something bothered me about it, and the origins of the three piece suit needed to be clearly identified. I hoped that by learning of it's origin, I could identify the reasons why a suit is considered professional.
Well in my research, I find out some rather interesting. The modern suit appeared in the early 19th century. In fact, save for a few variations in material and cuts, the suit hasn't changed all that much
And also it was associated with the upper-class. Meaning that the reason that we considers suits to be professional, is in reality a remnant of a belief that if you look like the upper-class you will be part of the upper-class.
And since it was enforced by businesses and the like, it became a form of unspoken tradition. A tradition based on the aesthetic mimicry.
And therefore the argument for the suit being professional, is really an argument to tradition. Therefore is should be seen as nothing more but a logical fallacy, that restricts no only creative thinking, but also would enforce a lack of functionality on your attire.
But that wouldn't be enough to convince the modern work-place to change it's view on the matter. So I have given some thought as to how one should approach the problem of a workplace that tends to bend to such antiquated views on what is worn and how they could convince the workplace they are in, to relax their dress-code hold.
1) Three piece suits are costly to the individual, as the market and after-market have fees of maintenance of these expensive attire. Dry cleaning, tailoring and the companies that sell these suits are expensive. The T.O.C. (Total Ownership Cost) force workers to ask of raises as to keep the image up, and it cost the company time (Leaving work early so they can balance trips to the cleaner's and non-work like).
2) The suit doesn't fit the needs of the modern work-place when you need to keep your tools on yourself at all times. Where are the pockets to keep your data drives, your pda's and other tools of the modern workplace on a three piece suit? Also, It is not designed for people who need to be active. It suffers from from that design flaw. Dress shoes FAIL to provide the proper support to a person's feet. they are ill-designed.
3) More and more people are getting tired of people in suits, because they have learned to identify it not with professionalism, but with people who have used appearances to mask gross incompetence (Think POLITICIANS). People who do make that association, are usually clients, and we don't want to alienate the profit margin now do we?
Mind you, you won't win. But if we slowly chip at them slowly, eventually we will be just as professional in a hoodie and sweatpants as we are in a three-piece suit. Why? Because at that point the whole "professionalism" bit will no longer stem from appearances but from the quality of service rendered as it should have been in the first place.
w01F
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)