IGExpandingPanda

Day One: Epson 1280 + Mediastreet G6 ink + Blue Lable CISS

2008-12-12T21:57:00.000-08:00

DAY ONE
EPSON 1280 + MediaStreet G6 ink + Blue Lable CISS

Blue Lable CISS will now be the official name of the product from Shenzhen NXY Technology Co. It's named after the misspelling on their cartridges for the Epson R200, and is very Googleable. It's pronounced Blue Lab-lay. Every no-name Product needs a name.

Printer - Epson 1280
CIS unit - Super Smart Electronics Blue Lable
Ink - G6 Generaltions UltraChrome w/ photo black
Test paper - Kirkland photo paper (made in Mexico)
Scanner - Canon mp830 Sheetfed.

Thus far I can't say it's been 100% trouble free.

[Black Banding]
There was a kink in the supply hose for the black which may have resulted in issues. It seems to have cleared it self up. It may be a different issue.

[Incomplete printing]
After a couple of cleaning cycles it may be the chips were reading as "empty". Powering down the printer seems to have resolved this.

[black glazing]
The G6 Generaltions UltraChrome has an option for two blacks, one glossy one not. I was shipped the glossy one and as such some shadows come out as sort of shinny.

[color rendering]

These inks are geared toward the Epson 2200, 7600, 9600, and as such they are not an exact match to OEM. As such an ICC profile is required to compensate. MediaStreet provides these upon request, they don't give them out to just everybody. Additionaly they will provide profiles if you send them samples. Thus far the best result has been from MIS (inksupply.com).

Source Image left
This is the OEM ink on Kirkland photopaper. The green-chartreuse of the grass has faded greatly and most everything has a cool shift. Still not an awful rendering.

The profile provided by MediaStreet was for Epson Premium Glossy paper. If I had some I'd test it, but I have to say it's yellow, really yellow.

Even though the blotch in the sky due due to over zealous x-raying of my camera bag comes across much more starkly than the others, This comes across as closer to the intended result. It's a tad cooler then I would have liked, the organic growth does not have that look of healthy mossy green that Mayan ruins should have.

These are first I'm printing with non-OEM non-color matched inks on this printer.

More to come.

2008-12-10T02:01:00.000-08:00

Bulk pigment inks

My main printer is a Canon iP5200 and Canon MP830 with CD printing enabled. I made the switch to canon mainly because they offer a good general purpose printer. But last year I picked up an Epson 1280 13 inch wide printer. I've not done many 13x19 prints, but enough that it justified picking it up. Now it seems to be time to take the plunge with pigmented inks.

Canon offers a bubblejet printer, as in ink is heated until it boils which results in the ink being deposited on a page. Epsons use piezo electric printheads, as in they use crystals that expand when current is applied to them. One advantage is the ability to vary the drop size. Canon for example have 4 sets of nozzles on their printer, 30 picoliter for text, 5, 2, and 1 picoliter for colors. Something similar can be accomplished on Epson printers but with a single nozzle set. The other major advantage is you can put just about any type of liquid though them including pigment inks.

Due to Epson's deisgn they lend them selves rather well to external inktanks, or CISS (Continious Ink Supply Systems). To this end I purchaced what I term as the "Blue Lable CISS" as the first set of cartridges I purchaced said specifically "DO NOT REMOVE BLUE LABLE". They have since corrected the spelling error. I believe they are manufactured by the Shenzhen NXY Technology Co.,Ltd. I spent $40 on my set though www.supersmartelectronics.com. Huge profit margin as you can buy them in lots of 100 for $4.50 each. They are not expensive to produce.

In most cases, bulk aftermarket in is far less archival than OEM ink. However in this case
26 years under glass using swellable polymer paper is not all that stellar, and 9 years using the ordinary quick dry type paper is pretty awful. MediaStreet G-chrome is said to have been tested to be archival for 100+ years.

There are a few options for bulk pigment ink for the Epson. There's Lyson, Image-Specialists, and MediaStreet just to name a few. I selected MediaStreet mainly because they provide ICC profiles not only for their papers, but for papers you submit to them. According to MediaStreet their G-Chrome inks have been tested by Wilhelm Research at about 100 years before noticable faiding.

As seen above Epson wants about 78c/ml for their OEM ink on this printer. But aftermarket pigment ink which is more archival than this OEM dye ink is only 20c/ml. This works out to be about $13.80 the volume of ink in a set of cartridges vs $55.

How well do they work? Well we'll see. At present your only options for a consumer pigment ink based printer are

Epson 13 inch models - R1900 R2800
Epson Durabrite document printers - C120 C88+
Kodak all in one Printers
Canon 13 inch models - Pixma Pro 9500
Canon Document Printer - Pixma MX7600

Kodak is your ONLY option for a letter sized pigment inkjet photo printer. An Epson pigment photoprinter will run you about $500 even though their $100 models can use pigmented ink.

Other details on the iP4600 CD-printing

2008-09-25T03:08:00.001-07:00

As indicated in the prior post, I'm not very impressed with the cost per page nor the advertised longevity of the new canon Chromalife100+ inks over the old Chromalife100 used in their iP4200, 5200, 4300, and 4300 printers. Most notable is a reduction of head size (see image left), decreased volume of ink and in page yields.

The other issue is that of CD printing.

Canon yet again changed their trays.

Tray A - i865 / i965
Tray B - early iP series mp750/760/780
Tray C - iP4200/5200/iP6600D/iP6700D
Tray D - mp500/800/830/950/960
Tray E - Their prosumer models pro9000/9500
Tray F - later iP models iP4300/5300 mp600/610/810/960¹

In figure left we see clearly

Tray G² - iP4600

What joy it is to come out with a different piece of plastic every year with only minor changes. It's hard to say whether Phillips took exception to Canon supplying the trays to resellers overseas or if there is someone at their Japanese HQ that specifically wants to annoy us.

The difference between the lesser iP3600 and the iP4600 is a lack of dual paper feeds and they ditched CD printing support in the model.

Canon IP3600/IP4600 Released - Cartridges Shrunk

2008-09-24T21:20:00.000-07:00

The latest and greatest Canon printers have been released. I've not seen their output, but I have seen Druckerchannel's test of the page yield.

Printing cost comparison Pixma iP4500 and iP4600 using to ISO 24711
	iP4500 (CLI-8/ PGI-5)	NEW: iP4600 (CLI-521/ PGI-520)
Text Black	525 Pages (16 Euro)	350 Pages (12 Euro)
Photo Black	^5,475 1 page (14 Euro)	^1,875 * 1 page (11 Euro)
Cyan	935 Pages (14 Euro)	505 Pages (11 Euro)
Magenta	715 Pages (14 Euro)	471 Pages (11 Euro)
Yellow	750 Pages (14 Euro)	505 Pages (11 Euro)
Cost per page	8,6 Cents = 100%	10,7 Cent = 124%
© Druckerchannel.de
* Photo black was not used in this test. Consumption represents that of the cleaning cycles.

So in terms of Euros the new iP4600 costs about 3.3c/page where the older generation of Pixmas cost only 3.0cents'page That's an 11cent increase. Holistically speaking we're talking a 24% increase.

The main reported improvement is with album life. Using the new PR-201 paper and the new ChromaLife 100+ inks they claim 300+ years of stability in an album in their Aug 26, 2008 press release¹. This sounds impressive, but they also claim only 30 years if exposed to a bare bulb 10 hours/day under glass². This happens to be the exact same amount as the ChromaLife 100 inks on the older generation using the PR-101 paper³. They also claim gasfastness has increased to 20 years⁴ using their Photo Paper Plus Glossy II PP-201, Photo Paper Pro II PR-201, or Photo Paper Pro Platinum PT-101. They are unclear whether or not there is any improvement using the new inks on their older generation of paper.

Canon was never the choice for archival prints. Epson pigment ink and HP on swellable polymer paper take the cake, possibly the new Canon Easyshare series of printers with pigmented ink.

So the cartridges are smaller and the ink costs more per ml, and per page. Perhaps there was an improvement to the printer over prior generations.

Comparison of Canon models
	iP4300	iP4500	iP4600
Number of Nozzles	Black: 512	Black: 512	Black: 320
	Color: 1,024 x 2 colors (C, M), 512 x 2 colors (C, M), 512 x 2 colors (Y, BK)	Color: 512 x 3 (C/M), 512 x 1 (Y/BK)	Color:4,096
	Total: 3,584	Total: 4,608	Total: 4,416
Print Speed letter	Black: Up to 30 ppm	Black: 31 ppm 1.9sec/page	Black: 26 ppm 2.3sec/page
	Color: Up to 24 ppm	Color: 24 ppm 2.5sec/page	Color: 21 ppm 2.9sec/page
4x6 borderless	36 seconds	21seconds	20 seconds
Noise	34 dB(A)	34.5 dB(A) 5	45.5 dB(A)
	-URL-	-URL-	-URL-
All Data from www.usa.canon.com

So according to Canon's number, they made a noisier model which is actually slower on everything except 4x6 paper, and this is with the weight reduction of about 20ml or so.

Well perhaps the end result would be cheaper.

	iP4500	iP4600		mP530	mP830
Amazon.com	$106.00*	$99.00		$94.00*	$153.99*
Buy.com	$144.96	$109.99		$101.99	$153.99
Newegg.com	$114.98			$129.98
Overstock.com	$137.99			R$109.99
* does not include shipping			R is a refurbished model
Prices quoted 2008 Sept 25^th
The iP4600 will cost you $11.88 more per 1000 pages of black at 5% yield than any of these other models. Expect to save $21 for mixed printing per 1000 pages

So for a newly released model, the price is rather low. Going with the older iP4500 will cost a a little bit more, but not all that much considering the cost savings of ink.

This ignores the possibility of bulk ink. In 2006 Canon added chips to their cartridges, in part I'm sure to discourage refilling. You could refill cartridges, but when a cartridge is empty you could no longer add ink and have the printer see it as with even older models. Now there are chip resetters on the market, as well as aftermarket chips. Bulk ink will save you as much as 90%, not including investment in syringes and plugs for your cartridges. The older generation is a known quality, the iP4600 has yet to be released.

While I would have to see an iP4600 to make an informed judgment based on Canon's numbers and Druckerchannel's test, it's clear the cost to operate the newest generation Canon printer will be significantly higher, with no documented improvement in text rendering, and questionable improvement in ink longevity. For right now, if you're in the market for a Canon printer, buy the older model.

Trusted Reviews - Their take on the new iP4600

Civilization and its Discothèques: The Atheist Torn

2008-08-21T09:37:00.000-07:00

Civilization and its Discothèques: The Atheist Torn

Nattyadams offers a neutral take as a NYCA member.

Blogs regarding NYC Atheists & Rook Hawkins

2008-08-21T02:14:00.000-07:00

Excommunicated by the Atheists! - Rationallyspeaking.org {Phil Pollock & Massimo Pigliucci}
More Drama in the World of Organized Atheism - The Friendly Atheist
Atheism, Youth, and One Unicorn Drawing - Skepchick
The Young and the Godless - Natty Adams
The Atheist Torn - Natty Adams
NYCA MONTHLY MEETUP TOMORROW NIGHT! - Michael Dorian

[forums & ED]
ATHEIST ATTACKED AT HUMANIST CONFERENCE - Jane Everhart on Sapient being punched

Reviews of my Lecture at NYC - Rook Hawkins
Rook's lecture slides

Dawkins - What Rook is not
Rants n Raves - Continuing the "Dialogue" Rook Hawkins

Encyclopedia Dramatica - Rook Hawkins speaks to NYC Atheists - described as "scholarly"

Brian 'Sapient' Cutler on self publishing

2008-08-13T04:13:00.000-07:00

This post is located -here-. It's trimmed for brevity sake, but you get the point. Any claim that Rook was invited to write for an academic series is simply not accurate.

Aug 2007

Dear Tim O’Neill,

Thank you very much for your letter. I appreciate very much your taking the trouble to write to ask about this book. I knew nothing of these announcements. No, I have not accepted this book for publication in our series. I have asked to read it, but I have made no judgment concerning its suitability for our series. As far as I am informed, it is not yet finished. Without referring to your letter or to you, I have written Mr. Hawkins and asked him to remove this advertisement. I am most grateful for your help in this regard and for your very quick reply.

Thomas

Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen

So, not only do we have evidence that Rook was incorrect about being accepted to publish in the Copenhagen seminar, we have Brian 'Sapient' Cutler's own words. "I personally have spoken to at least 5 people with the power to publish Rooks book and would be interested in doing so." This is hardly the same thing as being invited to write for an academic series, in fact at the time of this writing it's not even been accepted for publication. It may yet be accepted by someone, or Rook might self publish, but Rook shouldn't be presenting him self as already being invited to write a book as part of a series when he, to be fair, is at present unpublished without any academic accomplishments.

Jane Everhart's late night phone calls? I do not believe.

2008-08-13T03:25:00.000-07:00

There is an accusation that Someone phoned Jane Everhart of NYC Atheists 2008Aug10 3 am.

While it's somewhat true she asked everyone to "leave Rook alone", exposing him as an intellectual fraud is consistent in raising the standards of atheism as a philosophical position.

I was the one who faxed the restaurant. They have no fax listed and I wanted my complaints in hard copy. As such I was at least willing to give Jane the benefit of the doubt that I may have accidentally typed in NYC Atheists number, which is apparently just Jane Everharts home phone. But all faxes have a message after the fact whether they succeeded or failed. No error message, no busy, no answer, no errors. I sent two faxes, one at 1:46am, the other at 4:07 New York time. I further followed up with PDF copies via e-mail.

It may be possible that someone else did this, after all Jane claimed I had an army, but her credibility is rather thin and I won't believe this statement unless she has answering machine tapes to prove it.
Sat 8/09/08 10:54 PM She types this message
She was online Sun 8/10/08 4:10 AM
(7:10 AM NYC time), and deleted a message from her Meetup page.

Further BillC suggests Jane was being harassed, and she was getting faxes to her house phone at 3:30am. And she took her phone off the hook. This leaves us with three possibilities.

1) I faxed her house line
2) Someone else faxed her
3) Jane is full of shit

(1) I checked my logs, 2 faxes, both successful
(2) Jane alludes to more than two critics
(3) Until such time as Jane offers proof of being called, I am forced to presume she is full of shit.

Supporting the full of shit theory is her claims of being harassed. She's the communication director for NYC Atheists, and the Center for Atheism. She's also the press secretary responsible for issuing a press release claiming that Rook Hawkins translated the bible from Greek. I understand she's a volunteer but it was her job to verify the facts before she issued a press release, I pointed out three facts that were incorrect, and rather than investigate she cried Vatican conspiracy theory. I have to admit I was annoyed with Jane, but I kept it accurate, and professional. She kept it paranoid and fulled with hyperbole.

So let's review
1) I sent NO fax at 3:30am, only 1:46am and 4:07am
2) These faxes were not even sent to the same residence
3) There is no record of a failed fax, two sent, two received.
4) If Jane took her phone off the hook at 3:30am, fax #2 wouldn't have been an issue
5) Faxing the restaurant was due to her not owning her own damn fax machine.
6) Contact with Jane was strictly professional, and was consistent with her duties as communications director and press agent for NYC Atheists
7) Until Jane presents evidence to the contrary, I must presume that she is not presenting accurate facts in this matter.

As for Sapient, he posted a very one sided conversation, and as usual censored his comments section to anyone critical of Rook's position.

Ige Panda

NYC Atheists censored Forum Messages

2008-08-12T16:43:00.000-07:00

Seems Jane Everhart of NYC Atheists is removing members who attended the event who are critical of Rook Hawkins. This includes one bad review from a "theist" and another bad review from Roy Pertchik. Update, all negative reviews of Rook have been deleted. So much for honesty.

-Updated 10am 21 Aug 2008 -
NYCA Meetup thread "The truth" William Rathpig chims in on the truth -CENSORED- INCOMPLETE
NYCA Meetup thread"The lies" IGEPanda comments on Bill C's commentary, Bill C is polite. -CENSORED-

-Updated 21 Aug 2008-
NYCA MeetUp thread "Rook Hawkins" after heavy censorship. Bill C Chimes in -CENSORED-
NYCA MeetUp "The Truth" William Rathpig chims in on the truth -CENSORED-
NYCA MeetUp "The Lies" IGEPanda comments on Bill C's commentary and relative inaccuracy -CENSORED-
NYCA Blog maintained by Michael Dorian - Seems to think Jane flipped after being phoned all night, rather than before, if she was phoned at all -CENSORED-
-PDFs from 14 Aug 2008 -
NYCA MeetUp Thread "Censorship" by William Rathpig *censored*
NYCA MeetUp Thread "I'm disappointed" by Phile *censored*
-PDFs from 13 Aug 2008 -
NYCA Meetup Thread "Rook Hawkins" Page 1 *cencored*
NYCA Meetup Thread "Rook Hawkins" Page 2 *cencored*
NYCA Meetup Thread "Rook Hawkins" Page 3 *cencored*
NYCA Meetup Thread Current view

NYC Atheists Message Board on Rook Hawkins thread 2 -CENSORED-

Outdated link

A Reply to Rook Hawkins thread (censored)
Meetup Comments. Many already censored
Censored comments #1
Censored comments #2
William Rathpig Censored #1
William Rathpig Censored #2

-outdated-
NYC Atheists Message Board on Rook Hawkins PDF 1 -outdated-
NYC Atheists Message Board on Rook Hawkins PDF 2 -outdated-
NYC Atheists Message Board on Rook Hawkins thread 2 -outdated-

Fax #1 Verified sent Sat 8/09/08 10:46 PM Sunday 1:46am NYC time
Fax #2 Verified sent Sun 8/10/08 1:07 AM Sunday 4:07am NYC time
NO FAILED ATTEMPTS
Fax #3 Verified sent Tue 8/12/08 2:59 AM Tue 5:59 AM NJ time
Fax #4 Verified sent Tue 8/12/08 4:36 AM Tue 7:36 AM NJ time
NO FAILED ATTEMPTS

E-mail correspondence with Jane Everhart of NYC Atheists

2008-08-12T13:13:00.000-07:00

10Aug2008 Rook Hawkins - Public Historian?‏
From: IntergalacticExpanding Panda (e-mail)
Sent: Wed 8/06/08 5:41 PM
To: info@nyc-atheists.org
Bcc: press@nyc-atheists.org

On your main page you have an event listed for Aug 10, 2008 with a man whose pseudonym is Rook Hawkins. Your page bills him as “a public historian of the Bible.” Had you billed him as an amateur historian, this would be accurate and acceptable. But to present him as a “public historian” is akin to Kent Hovind describing him self “teacher of high school science.” Public historian implies not only has a degrees in Historical Interpretation, but has been trained, and has presented critically reviewed works for public. He’s a young high school graduate in his mid 20s, and even if he was enrolled at a University it would be the height of hubris to present him self as anything other that a student of history.

Further, his claim of, “editing a book of collected scholar's essays for publication in an academic series” is false.

Aug 2007

Dear Tim O’Neill,

Thank you very much for your letter. I appreciate very much your taking the trouble to write to ask about this book. I knew nothing of these announcements. No, I have not accepted this book for publication in our series. I have asked to read it, but I have made no judgment concerning its suitability for our series. As far as I am informed, it is not yet finished. Without referring to your letter or to you, I have written Mr. Hawkins and asked him to remove this advertisement. I am most grateful for your help in this regard and for your very quick reply.

Thomas

Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen

{e-mail removed}

Rook Hawkins is an unpublished, unqualified intellectual fraud. It may be that after decades of work he might be worthy of the titles he bestows on him self, but respectfully he wants titles before accomplishment or getting the proper credentials. It would be wrong for your organization to perpetuate false use of academic terms such as “public historian”. Enthusiastic amateur historian or student of history would at least be accurate. The standards for the free thought community should be higher than those of the Creationist community.

I thank you for your time, and hope you have an inspirational day.

From: Jane Everhart NYC Athists
Sent: Wed 8/06/08 7:12 PM
To: Ige Panda
Hi -Thank you for your information.
However, I do respect autodidacts. My father was one. He too never went to college--or even high school--but was very well informed and could speak 5 languages.. Abe Lincoln never went to college, nor did George Bernard Shaw, nor did the guy who invented the geodesic dome.

It must be hard for you to understand that there are plenty of kids in this country who cannot afford to go to college, nor want to get into debt for college but still want to learn and have discovered that they can learn from reading. It's an old American way. I have complete confidence that Rook Hawkins will give an excellent talk to our group. He has had lots of experience doing this on his online radio show.

By the way, who are you? And why do you troll around deflating this boy's credentials?

Jane Everhart

RE: 10Aug2008 Rook Hawkins - Public Historian?‏
From: IntergalacticExpanding Panda (e-mail)
Sent: Wed 8/06/08 8:49 PM
To: Jane Everhart NYC Athists
Thank you for your reply.

The issue isn't autodidacts or even if someone without the proverbial brass tacks can make a contribution to the field. The issues are
1) Presenting Rook Hawkins as a "public historian" where he doesn't meet the qualifications as dictated in the field
2) Presenting Rook Hawkins book as a publication in an academic series when it's been verified that it hasn't been considered.

Whether he provides an excellent talk to your group is irrelevant, the event has a fraudulent billing. If you were to present him as an amateur historian, or a student of history, that would be reasonable and accurate.

I was most clear that he has no degree, nor has he been published. He may yet make a contribution and on his own EVENTUALLY be considered a historian, but that day is not yet. I am not deflating the boy's credentials, he simply has none, yet gives him self the titles as if he has done the years of work required to earn them.

You father, for example may have spoken 5 languages, but does that make him an expert linguist? Linquistics is an academic field. If he had a broad understanding of how language works, published papers on the subject and made a contribution to the field, you could call me an expert linguist. But without the qualifications, I would describe him as a amataure philologist.

This isn't about the relative cost of tuition, but presenting your self as something you are not. There is a world of difference between being "well informed" as you put it and being an academic. Academics is one part postulation, one part research, one part presentation.

Are you telling me that the NYC Atheists consider Rook Hawkins to be on the same level as George Bernard Shaw, Abe Lincoln, or Buckminster Fuller?

George Bernard Shaw - He went to college, he spent 15 years in college. recognized for his achievements
Abe Lincoln - True, no college recognized for his achievements, how many presidents didn't go to university?
Buckminster Fuller - (geodesic dome) Went to Harvard, expelled twice, Sc.D. from Bates College. recognized for his achievements

You see the theme here, ignoring the fact that two of the examples you used spent an inordinate amount of time at university, they are recognized for their achievements. But we are not talking about someone who has spent a lifetime of furthering the public's understanding of history, we're talking about someone who is at best an enthusiastic amateur and your organization billing him as something he isn't.

If you presented him as a amateur historian, who hosts a radio show on religion, that's would be fine. But you are billing him as a "Public historian" when he doesn't meet the qualifications as dictated by the field. If your organization feels comfortable perpetuation a fraudulent billing, and hold that it's okay because the talk will be interesting, that's up to you. Keep in mind that atheists and free thinkers are often critical of organizations like the Discovery Institute or Creation Science Evangelism because of their use of false credentials and bogus science. By
perpetuating false academic titles to someone who HASN'T EARNED THEM, it's just as bad as Kent Hovind claiming to be a teacher of "high school science".

Feel free to host Rook Hawkins, but do consider changing the billing on your site.

As for me, I'm just your regular run of the mill apatheist. I don't care for the believe in god(s), but I do care about freedom of/from religion and presenting atheism as a legit choice. I pride my self on accuracy and offer constructive criticism to help furthering the goals. But if you wish to label me a troll, that's up to you.

Thank you for your time, and do have an inspirational day.

Re: 10Aug2008 Rook Hawkins - bible specialist‏
From: Jane Everhart NYC Athists
Sent: Thu 8/07/08 1:23 PM
To: Ige Panda
Hey, quit annoying me. I told you I'd change the web site.

The kid is a bible specialist, OK?

We're just going to have fun, so relax. You take life (and credentials) much too seriously.

RE: 10Aug2008 Rook Hawkins - bible specialist‏
From: IntergalacticExpanding Panda
Sent: Thu 8/07/08 4:32 PM
To: Jane Everhart NYC Athists
The kid is not a bible specialist. I'm not a Christian but "Bible Specialist" suggests certification from the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), as well as at least a BA or equivalent with 24 study hours. Lifetime certification as a "Bible Specialist" requires a Masters degree, 40 study hours in biblical studies, and a minor philosophy requirement.

There is no need to be defensive. I recognize the fact that there have been major contributions to various fields without formal education. Thomas Edison had no Michael Faraday. John Boyd has an economics degree, and Nikola Tesla never finished school. But that's not the issue. As you pointed out going to school is a great hardship, and it's insulting to those who spent years getting their brass tacks to have someone give them selves titles without either formal education or accomplishment. To bill him as such directly affects the credibility of your organization.

You want to have fun. Great. Just don't have an event by presenting a speaker as something they are not. But the event isn't presented as fun, it's presented as "a discussion of conflict between historical Jesus scholarship and their presuppositions versus the use of literary criticism and how a better, more probable explanation can be given for the existence of the legend of Jesus" by a "public historian of the Bible" who already has a book accepted for "publication in an academic series".

1) Rook isn't a public historian nor a bible specialist. These titles require credentials, either degrees or recognition in the field.
2) We've been in contact with Thomas L. Thompson at the University of Copenhagen (tlt@teol.ku.dk) and while he has expressed an interest in reading Rook's book, it's not even being considered publication in his series.

You see, the problem isn't a person without higher education critically reviewing a public work. The problem is a person presenting them selves as if they are already a part of the academic community before being published, already been accepted as being worthy to be published in an academic series, and no Curriculum Vitae. Rook may yet actually get essays published in peer review journals. He may, over time, build up a reputation for him self. That day is not today, and until that time, he is at best an enthusiastic amateur historian with an interest in the Jesus Mythicist position.

I thank you for your time, and hope you have an inspirational day.

Re: 10Aug2008 Rook Hawkins - bible specialist‏
From: Jane Everhart NYC Athists
Sent: Thu 8/07/08 4:57 PM
To: (e-mail)
In a message dated 8/7/2008 7:32:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ige Panda writes:

"The kid is not a bible specialist. I'm not a Christian but "Bible Specialist" suggests"

Bible specialist suggests doodly squat. In the Army they have a Specialist First Class whose "specialty" is peeling potatoes. What would you suggest I call Rook? Bible aficionado? Bible Champ? Bible hound? Bible drone? Bible lover? Bible critic is my favorite. But why would you care? We don't. If you don't stop pestering me, I'm going to spam you.

RE: 10Aug2008 Rook Hawkins - bible specialist‏
From: IntergalacticExpanding Panda (e-mail)
Sent: Thu 8/07/08 6:23 PM
To: Jane Everhart NYC Athists
You understand in the Army a cook is an officer don't you?

Specialist First Class, also known as full bird privates. They differ from corporals as they are not considered non-commissioned officers but get the same pay. It has a very specific meaning within the Army, and has nothing to do with a specialty, it's ranks E-4 to E-9, but does represent the more experienced lower ranks. You might not respect the skill involved in peeling potatoes, but we are talking about peeling potatoes for AN ARMY. Someone who joins the Army with a undergrad degree gets the rank E-4. I don't know for a fact they still peel potatoes in the Army. Near as I'm aware, unless you are deployed in the field, they come peeled but I don't pretend to know about KP.

Specialist First Class is a rank that has a specific meaning within the military.

Bible Specialist is a technical term and has a list of requirements.
http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/002410_Bible%20Chart.pdf

Public Historian is a technical term
http://www.publichistory.org/what_is/definition.html

Just because you are unaware of it's specific meaning doesn't mean it has none or means doodly squat. You can not use a generic dictionary to define terms as they apply to a specific field. Each field has it's own proverbial or actual dictionary.

I've already given you suggestions as to what to call Rook. Amateur historian with an interest in the Jesus Mythicist position, or Self-taught student of history researching the existence of a historical Jesus. Or as you suggest "Bible Critic with a focus on Hellenistic Gnostics."

I already explained why I care. The main reason to be critical of organizations like the Discovery Institute, the center of intelligent design, is their veneer of false credentials , poor scholarship, and misrepresentation or flat out omission of key scientific evidence. Secular organizations IMHO should be held to a higher standard when presenting information as legitimate scholarship. You don't care about education, fair enough. But don't use terms that suggest higher education when it doesn't exist. It's deceptive.

For the future, you may enjoy asking people for their curriculum vitae (CV) before billing them as an academic. It may save embarrassment.

Thank you for your time, and have an inspirational day.

Copies of the faxes‏
From: IntergalacticExpanding Panda (e-mail)
Sent: Sun 8/10/08 3:13 PM
To: Jane Everhart NYC Athists
Security scan upon download Virus scanning provided by Trend Micro ®
Attachments: 2008-08-1...pdf (16.0 KB), 2008-08-1...pdf (124.7 KB)
Dear Jane,

Enclosed are the two faxes I sent to the restaurant. You had no fax service listed, so I do apologize for any inconvenience.

In short, rather than actually be an adult about this matter and actually check the claims, you decided that I was part of some Vatican conspiracy to discredit rook. If anything the ATHEIST credits are being far too kind regarding Rook's credentials. It would seem he doesn't have a high school diploma.

You were beyond rude, you suggested I molest alter boys. My goal was to elevate the bar for secular organizations. I never asked that Rook not speak, nor do I suggest one needs higher education to be a bible critic. The issue was you grossly misrepresenting and presenting information such as his translating the bible from Greek by age 25. Either Rook lied to you, or you lied to your public.

I expect a public apology for your actions. What you did was uncalled for, and all of this could have been avoided had you checked the facts of this matter, and not construct a Vatican conspiracy.

Re: Copies of the faxes‏
From: Jane Everhart NYC Athists
Sent: Mon 8/11/08 10:19 AM
To: Ige Panda
Panda,

I apologize for calling you a Vatican scumbag. Actually, I don't know what that means. I know what the Vatican is but I had to look up "scumbag" in the dictionary. According to Webster's Collegiate, it means "a dirty or despicable person." I guess that would not apply here because I can't see whether you are dirty and I certainly do not despise you since I do not know you. I may despise your methods, but not you personally..

I objected to your inundating me and our Meetup site with these warnings about Rook. When you flame people like that without provocation, you immediately make them feel attacked and thus they feel a stronger sense of kinship with the victim who, in this case, was Rook. I felt I really wanted to protect this young man against your assaults. You might try changing your M.O., it might work better.

We feel we must give everybody a chance. Rook gave a good talk; it was well-researched and quite academic. We feel the boy has great potential and should not be discouraged. I don't mind if he uses a pseudonym--many writers do.

There was no harm done by Rook and his family, who accompanied him. You might examine why you are pursuing him so viciously; you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. I don't see what harm he does.

Anyway, my apologies for calling you a scumbag. I'd reached the end of my rope after being awakened all night long by your guerrilla troops.

Deleted comments from NYC Atheists

2008-08-12T12:58:00.001-07:00

Deleted Conversations from http://atheists.meetup.com/24/calendar/8380293/

PDFs of exchange with Jane Everhart NYC Atheism

2008-08-12T04:50:00.001-07:00

I took it upon my self to communicate with Jane Everhart press relations for NYC Atheism. It seems that she invited Rook Hawkins of the Rational Repsonse Squad to speak, but was billing him as

1) A Public Historian / Bible Specialist
2) A man who translated the bible from Greek
3) Invited to write a book for an academic series.

None of these true. (1) is Rook presenting him self with technical titles he doesn't meet the qualifications for. (2) is just insane to think that a 25 year old man could translate the whole bible from Greek when it takes organizations of thousands of people 5-20 years to turn out a translation. (3) is simply not true and in fact Brian Sapient him self addressed this issue by saying he knows of publishers that might be interested in publishing his book, but that's hardly the same as asking an unpublished amateur to write for an academic series.

The Rational Response Squad are experts at revisionist history, so as such, I'm making my correspondences with NYC Atheists as well as American Atheists a matter of public record. It's currently Brian Sapient's claim that I and others tried to ruin Rook's speaking engagement. That's simply not true. Rook can do what he wants, so long as he doesn't engage in intellectual dishonesty and academic deception. You don't need credentials to be a bible critic, but you do to be a historian, and for him to pretend is just as bad as Kent Hovind pretending to be a "teacher of high school science".

Fax 1

Fax 2

Fax 3

Fax 4