Win an autographed copy from us (personalized) of Radar Magazine 11-07 with out cool 3 page story...

Direct link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWGaZ5Ydyrs 

I was wondering what you thought of the article.  Do you feel that the writer treated the story fairly?  I only ask because the article seemed pretty derogatory/unflattering and not in that usual way of just being a little lippy for the sake of hipness.  Your take on the attitude?

 Their magazine focuses on scandal, the article presented some scandal in a fun way, I got a kick out of it.  I didn't see anything wrong with it.  Give me a specific, and I'll let you know.

in the article, the descriptions of yourselves- "Brian and Kelly, both unpublished dropouts" begins one paragraph. While this information may be factual, is this statement really necessary or even the best way to describe their subject? Later, in a paragraph about Kelly- "Kelly left Fort Lee, New Jersey, quitting her lap-dancing gig...to move in with Brian. She's now closer to her three sons, who live with her ex-husband..." I understand a need to describe the people they are writing about but some of the information seems to be added with the purpose of being a little nasty and a little off topic. What do Kelly's stripping gigs and 3 sons have to do with your group's current actions for atheism? Toward the end of the article, "Brian is planning to make the Squad a nonprofit, but so far he's been too lazy to file the paperwork." The very last paragraph states "a friend is working on a documentary about the Rational Responders. The project will be the first for the director, a film school dropout and former member of Best Buy's Geek Squad." There's little snide comments like this throughout the article and it doesn't smack of irreverance but of nastiness. My point is that these snarky sidenotes do nothing to help explain your cause they only detract/distract from it. Am I just being a negative nelly, or do you get my point?

I mean was the article written to insult?

The language there isn't necessary. I guess we think most of this stuff is funny because we know better. I'll address briefly some more accurate ways to reflect our history in as short a time frame as I have.

- Kelly left college upon being pregnant in school with her third child (she was a full time mom/student). She held a 4.0 gpa (which they printed) and will likely be fully scholarshipped at an Ivy League school.

- I left school after a year due to the desire to support my son, rather than rely on my parents to help (they had offered). Once in the corporate world making it good money, and continously focusing on my son, it made college less desireable. I already had great earning capacity.

- They forgot to mention Rook hasn't even gone to college! What a loser! Rook is currently writing a book based on his extensive years of historical research. I have heard from 1 doctorate, and two men with Masters that Rooks work is on par with a Doctoral thesis. One academic joked that Kent Hovind claims to have a doctorate, and his thesis reads like a 7th grader while Rook claims nothing about college and writes better than most doctorates.

 - KELLY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED!  Due to the fact that her real name is used in the places she has been published, we don't refer to them.  However Kelly took 3rd place nationwide in a college essay contest, and the top 3 in each category are put in a book each year.  She was also published in Christianity Today.   

- Our lack of college degrees does not all of the sudden invalidate our arguments, or validate our irrational counterparts.

Both Kelly and Rook have intense and focused desire to attain doctorates. Against my judgement... I think it's a waste of time, and that they only need a 4th grade education to expose the frauds we see in the religious world.

Obviously not the best way to describe their subject. Where they chose the word "dropped out" for scandalous purposes would have been "withdrew" in your world. I think the point is... they wouln't print that story. Inevitably the question would become... would you rather have the press with a little embellishment, or would you "drop out" of the media coverage?

She also quit her mom too! lol That sentence was stupid. Kelly took another job as a dancer part time in Philly. A job none of us want her to work, but she remains persistent in trying to help supplement our small income here.

Nothing. But they don't exactly cover stories in that manner. They try to get behind the scenes, find the juicy stuff, the scandal. They never agreed to write a piece specifically about our activism, we knew it would be racy when it came out. We purposefully took pictures with overt sexual overtones and blasphemy when they came out, hoping to rattle feathers.

Clarification: I work 80-145 hours a week. I'm not really planning to make the Squad a non profit... I'm considering it. And frankly there are hundreds of factors to consider, and I feel no need to rush. Sometimes I think things over for a while, and plan for something better thats coming down the road... that's basically what phase I'm in now.

Yes this wording was poor... I laughed out loud though when I heard it.

They only have become "friends" since filming us. Even then, the relationship has been nothing but professional. You can learn more about them and the movie, here.

I think the confusion came in that the film makers are friends of each other, and one of them introduced the other to the idea of making a movie about us. Hence a friend of a friend... however neither were our friends until then... and I use friend loosely. I like them a lot as people, but honestly the film crew and RRS barely know each other outside of a professional level.

Nope. He actually has done a project or two, small things. It is however his first project with his new company "Haxormod studios" which has virtually nothing online at the moment.

He actually left school because he felt he was smarter than the teacher. (long story, I didn't even ask)

I think he actually still works at the Geek Squad.

They forgot to mention that he and his 2 friend crew have invested thousands of dollars themselves into this project. Some would say they are seeking the American dream, obviously there is a more amazing story to tell here, I just don't think you can expect Radar to tell it.

Agreed, however if someone is gonna judge any logical arguments we'd have based on the snide comments of one source, don't we just have more irrationalities to fix? I'm not just attacking theism. I see the notion that our arguments would hold less validity due to any negative characteristic that can be ascribed to us as absurdly irrational, and you and I should fight against it when it comes up. However you should keep in mind that your opportunity to expose such silliness right here on this site, may ocurr as a direct result of Radar magazine sending the person here.

I get your point, I almost agree. Maybe I'm just trying to be too optimistic.

Feel free to quote any other points, I'll add clarifications for anyone who would like to hear them.

Look at the story like a Rolling Stones article behind the scenes capturing Marilyn Manson's ride to stardom. The article is about us becoming well known fast, not as much about us helping to end the most destructive mind disease on our planet.

They sound like tongue-in-cheek over-embellishments to me. Am I wrong? I've never read RADAR. Do their other articles contain similar quips about the interviewees, etc.?

My guess about the purpose of these unflattering comments about Sapient and Kelly is to make them...

...well, "human," as opposed to "just two guys from teh Interwebs."[sic]

It makes Brian and Kelly look like people who have jobs and families, just like most Americans. Except they aren't Christian in any sense of the word. If nothing else, it makes them NOT look like the stereotype that some people have about atheists - it makes them look NOT EVIL.

After all, what can be evil about 'ordinary' people with 'ordinary' (side) jobs, 'ordinary' families and an 'ordinary' education level of "some college?"

Radar is a kind of snarky, hipster magazine.  It has good music articles.  It's sort of like gawker.com.

The mag wont let me post a comment

I've asked them to fix this. They also addressed some thoughts I had about the online article, and comments about the giveway I posted. They were quick to volunteer 12 extra copies of the magazine, but they've waited 36 hours to address the page concerns (which include a teaser, a clickable link to RRS, a link to our Radar mag contest, and a spot on the homepage). These items were offered by an assistant editor yesterday, but today I heard nothing back from the internet team nor did I say them make any changes.

They did say they were very busy, and I can understand that for sure. 

I'm holding off on the hard core promotion until they fix these flaws, which I hope happens soon. I'd imagine, They missed out on a few hundred new users yesterday.

Just thought I should make note of some positive reaction to the radar article...

   2 people have come in to our chatroom in the last week saying they're glad the found us.  Another just wrote us this email on myspace....

Radar magazine ads us to homepage.

Radar has also contacted us today to ask to use Matthew Chapman's letter to us, he plans to revise it slightly and submit it to them.

Here it is...

A letter from the author of the Radar Magazine piece. We've exchanged several cordial emails, this is one he wrote as he thought it might help shed some light...