To be honest (and I say this with all due respect), 90% of the time I have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue. It all sounds like gibberish to me. Maybe I just don't understand postmodernism. Or perhaps you have reached a higher state of consciousness.

But if you want to take a stab at enlightening me, knock yourself out.

Repeat: "What's the difference between the aim of this movie and the prevailing tone in the religion forum of CougarGuard?

Looks like the same old hooey to me."

Work with me, sensei. What is the "prevailing tone in the religion forum of CougarGuard"?

"What I'm asking for is the freedom to follow the evidence where ever it leads ..." Isn't that a common refrain in most threads started in the religion thread, coupled with the appeal that it's all done in an attempt to enlighten?

Honestly -can't you just see Adam or Mike in the place of Ben Stein writing on the chalk board and hear their tone in the religion forum in the narrating?

You have said this before but I am not sure what you mean. Or better said, I am not sure I understand your use of the term "documentary."

If you have ever taken a film studies class, one of the first things, if not the first thing you learn about the docu-genre is that documentary simply refers to non-fiction with documentary value. It has nothing to do with politics and certainly does not require all opinions to be represented.

From the turn of the century, through the cinema verite era, to today, "documentaries" have always been non-fictional accounts told through the eye of the director. Even a cursory look at a list of Academy Awards for "documentaries" over the years shows a wide spectrum of topics, many of them controversial in nature (see Life and Times of Harvey Milk).

What are examples of "real documentaries" as you call them? And how do you reconcile films like Harvey Milk or American Dream (which could be argued is a one-sided account of the strike against of the Hormel factory in Minnesota)?

Nah. I am just not seeing it. This is a huge stretch.

The crazy thing is it's not a stretch at all. It's also actually quite funny.

Let's back up just a bit. The movie is based on a group of academics who claim to be the target of a massive conspiracy to silence them because they dare to challenge the prevailing scientific establishment which has a clearly anti-religious bias. More specifically, their peer-reviewed articles were either not published, or not sufficiently respected after they were published. What this scenario has (even remotely) to do with "the prevailing attitude of the CG religion forum" is beyond me. The two environments are completely different.

Furthermore, the reason for my skepticism is that conspiracy claims like this are almost always just a smokescreen for poor scholarship. Some people simply can't accept the fact that the paper they are trying to publish is just a pile of shit, so they make up a conspiracy theory and try to be martyrs. The ID crowd loves to play this role.

No comprende.