May 9, 2012

Atheist Tactics


OK, where do I start? I thought of naming this post "cognitive dissonance" because of the actions of an Atheist and his fanboy recently.

To catch you up, "Batman" and his "Robin" demanded unfairly that Sye could not use his own voice from the Skype conversation that they had, for any purpose. But "Batman and Robin" proclaimed they could use it freely on their blogs, podcast, and YouTube, as they did. So a couple of people did use it and and they immediately sent YouTube's Lawyers, and legal team, after the people that posted Sye's voice in that Skype conversation with a DMCA take-down notice. So since others used it, and so did "Batman and Robin", Sye posted it too. It was forced to be taken down also by YouTube's default position of taking it down immediately, if complained about, until it can be contested in court.

So "Batman" is a huge fan of censorship, restricting, eliminating, and hypocrisy. This is his M.O.

But wait! He just did a few posts about censorship, but this time he was complaining about it. Huh!? One that complains about SOPA and why we can and should stop it, and about four or five with the same subjects about the problems of people being restricted and censored!? He posted one on the subject of political censorship and moderator bias and plenty of more. "But wait, didn't he do just that with Sye," you might ask. Yes, he did just that. Cognitive Dissonance at it's finest.

"the joy of the wicked has been brief and the happiness of the godless has lasted only a moment?" ~Job 20:5

But that is only half the story of this blog post here.

On May 2nd I re-tweeted about a mystery of a popular YouTube channel, I subscribe to, was taken down on MayDay.

The channel is called PPSIMMONS - Defending Truth! Bible, God & Country and I thought something really bad had happened if the entire channel was removed so quickly and completely. A bit of research showed it was still a mystery at the time.

Well, today, we found out what happened.

YouTube restores Christian videos", we find out from someone that works at Google who said apparently, there was a “coordinated flagging” campaign that had occurred, which triggered the channel to be pulled. Apparently, people can "flag" a video as inappropriate and YouTube, without research or questioning it, will take the entire channel down. Sound familiar? Well that is what is going on these days folks. I wonder if there will be even one honest Atheist that is willing to admit to this, or that they talk about such things, in their sewing circles.

I even have had it happen here a couple of times. If I posted about a video putting Atheists in a bad light at all, then a few days later I will have to repost with an updated YouTube video because the original one I linked to had been taken down. This is the Atheists Tactic.

What does the Bible say about this? Plenty, like Isaiah 32:6, Matthew 7:3-5, Job 36:13, and especially Proverbs 11:9. But it all can be summed up with:

"They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption, since people are enslaved to whatever defeats them." ~2 Peter 2:19

YouTube is all the Atheists have to convince people into their cult religion. Google's motto "Don't do evil, but if others do evil on our system? No problem."

UPDATE: Apparently Skype has fair use polices. So "Batman and Robin" were wrong, and in violation, to insist they have rights to Sye's voice as they did. Actually, I believe "Batman and Robin" was violating Skype policy and should, and could, be banned from Skype. If I was an Atheist, I might pursue that type of avenue. :7)

200 comments:

  1. with respect, we reveal the Gospel, Biblically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Touché. Now, is rebuking respectful? If not, why not?

      Delete
  2. There are many occasions where people lose the rights to "their own voice." For example a band performing in a specific club may turn over the rights to that performance to the club, as a requirement to perform there. They will not be allowed to use clips from that performance even though its their own "voice". Instead of whining about this you could just grow up and learn a life lesson, don't make any appearances where somebody else owns the copyright. If you do that you will never run into this problem.

    Although I like how you pretend this is about using Sye's voice. If that was really the case Sye would have just spent a few seconds recording himself saying the same thing. Of course that video was not just Sye talking, and they wanted to use somebody else's voice. Well too bad, unless one of you guys can trick him to appear on some venue that you own the copyright to, you're probably not going to get his voice.

    And why is it that a person using their copyrighted material and stopping others from doing it hypocrisy? If someone breaks into your house I wouldn't call you a hypocrite for removing them from the property and pressing charges, even though you use the house yourself. Copyright owners can use their copyrighted material as they see fit and it doesn't give anybody else the right to use it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cognitive Dissonance - this entire post smacks of Dan projecting furiously. Maybe he's starting to have trouble reconciling his professed worldview with reality? Ah well, reality is a bitch like that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dan Dan Dan, how many things can you get wrong? Lots it seems!

    Firstly, please explain in what way, exactly, am I Jim's 'fanboy'? Jim and I are friends and colleagues on the podcast, that's all. You post far more comments on his blog than I do...in fact you'll notice a distinct lack of the two of us posting on each other's blogs. So, strike one.

    Secondly, just how thick are you? The original podcast includes Sye CLEARLY stating that he understood that the audio from it COULD NOT be used commercially or by any RELIGIOUS channel. What happened next? Sye's pals edited out that part, slapped adverts on it for his website and Crown Rights Media (a religiously motivated commercial enterprise) and chucked it up on the Crown Rights Youtube channel (a RELIGIOUS channel).

    Do you see the problem, Dan? Sye clearly acknowledged that he DID NOT have permission to use the audio in that way, and he went ahead with the interview clearly understanding this - at that point he had no idea that it would be such a short show!

    So, Dan, do YOU think it's acceptable to state that you understand the terms of a podcast interview only to break them?

    Anyway, that's why Sye had his video pulled, and then had it pulled again when he idiotically reposted it. It seems to me that Sye believes himself to be above basic honour, and possibly even above the law. This is hardly surprising, considering his belief that he is absolutely correct about everything (seriously, the man is basically setting himself up as a god).

    THAT is who you are chumming up to Dan, that is the kind of dishonesty that you are cheering on from the sidelines. Proud of yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Replies
    1. Yup, Dan genuinely thinks he's on the high ground here.

      Delete
  6. Alex,

    Any and all words and comments you use here are the sole owner of this blog. Any reproduction would be a violation of the agreement to comment here and in violation of US copyright laws.

    Debunking Atheists© owns your comment and must be requested in writing to use in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, you need to read up about copyright law. I'd suggest doing so right away, before you make an even bigger prick of yourself.

      Delete
  7. I don't listen to podcasts or recorded debates (it's faster to read transcripts) so I don't really follow these procedural wranglings. However, even I remember some flap with Sye and something named Hovind reselling material. Surely it's not that hard to agree to something and stick to it?

    On the topic of attacking posts to Youtube, etc. Again, no idea if the claims made in this post are accurate or not, but from my point of view attacking material just because you disagree with it is not really acceptable. However, I wouldn't call it an "Atheist Tactic" - there are plenty of counter examples of theists of various stripes doing the same. I would generally prefer that all Christian material remain up - watching Christian material is more likely to push someone towards atheism then just watching the atheist viewpoint. After all, we rationalists want you to criticize our views - that's how we refine and improve them. It's the religions of the world that criminalize blasphemy and other forms of criticism because they don't stand up to debate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan:

         Sorry, but writing is an act of recordeing and Alex automaticly owns his own comments. Furthermore, reproduction for the sake of non-commercial commentary is also allowed. That would fall under the "Fair use" provision that you talked about.
         But none of that is what you are actually defending. Sye edited Alex's argument, from the podcast on which Alex and Jim hold copyright, and used that in an effort to make $$$$$$$. Sye was engaged in theft, pure and simple. You support that because Sye is a fundamentalist christian like yourself and you don't see stealing from outsiders as wrong.
         Oh, by the way, I explicitly reject your "agreement." If I did not do so, it might be argued that I agreed implicitly. Sye agreed to Alex's terms, but had no intention of honoring them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Like Pvbs I explicitly reject Dan's 'agreement'.

    You'll have to block me, or give up blogging if you want me to give up any rights to your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan, do you know anything about copyright law?


    While you're talking about cognitive dissonance...

    Oh, and that second poster of yours? The one with atheists saying that there is no god and that we hate him? Please. Get a grip.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Crazy, Dan has lost it so much that he's now deleting my comments.

    I treat that as a 'win'

    ReplyDelete
  12.      "So [Dan] is a huge fan of Censorship, restricting, eliminating, and hypocrisy. This is his M.O."
         Jim has not, to the best of my knowledge, suppressed or deleted comments on his blog. Dan has. Now, Jim and Alex have had YouTube take down videos that gave deceptive edits of their statements and were done for profit. Dan just thinks it's okay to misrepresent non-christians.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In fact, it looks to me like Dan is turning into Bob Sorensen.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that this blog is owned by you, when in fact it belongs to Google, they are just letting you use it. Google terms of service says all content belongs to the person who made it. Blog posts, pictures, comments etc all belong to the person who made it.

    If you actually owned the blog space and you made a clear statement about commentors giving up the rights to their comments, before they posted them, you could claim copyrights on the comments. As it stands you do not own this blog space, you cannot claim copyright on anything here except your own words.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just keep on deleting, Dan, every time you do you graphically show how weak you are!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am giving Alex exactly how he wants to be treated. "Do unto others..." I said his comments on my blog are copywrited and has to get permission to use them. Exactly what he did with Sye with the exception that he outright denied Sye to use his own voice in a Skype conversation. It's absurd. He rejected my demands so he loses the privilege of commenting.

    Agree to my terms Alex and you can keep your comments here. Otherwise they will be removed. JUST like you did to Sye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, you're coming across as someone who doesn't actually understand copyright, and is desperate to defend Sye's indefensible actions.

      Listen, Danny boy, Sye EXPLICITLY stated he understood the terms of appearing on the podcast, and he was happy to continue under those terms. He subsequently completely ignored what he'd said, and did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he'd agreed - editing the audio, slapping adverts for his website and Crown Rights Media all over it, and then putting it up on not one but TWO religious channels on Youtube. Are you really so dense that you don't understand what's wrong there? Or are you so blinded by your love for your cult leader Sye?

      Anyway, as has already been pointed out, the blog actually belongs to Google, so you've fucked up there as well.

      BTW, your ability to type grammatically correct sentences seems to be slipping, Dan - perhaps you should stop rage typing?

      Delete
    2. BTW, Dan, there are some questions you've left unanswered over on my blog - you're still free to post there as I, unlike you, am not a child.

      Delete
  17. You're coming off as petty, Dan...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan:

         You are lying again. Have you seen Alex delete Sye's comments from his blog? Of course not, because he lets them stand. And what's with this "his own voice" lie you keep giving? Do you think it just sounds better? You know full well that Sye wasn't using just his own voice. He was selling Alex's and Jim's voices (with some of the words and statements edited out to serve his purposes.) Yet you keep lying. Do you worship a deceiver? Is that what christianity is?
         Note well. If Sye just wanted to use his own voice, he could have recorded himself without Alex or Jim and posted a video of that on YouTube. Neither of them would have raised an objection. But you know full well that this wasn't about his own voice. This was about "cherry-picking" the words of non-christians to make money for his so-called "ministry." Quite reasonably, Alex and Jim refused to be part of that. Hence the quite reasonable terms. You don't like them because your brand of christianity requires such deception.
         By the way, in accordance with what Max said, you might want to check the Terms of Service for Blogger. Your would-be agreement violates them. You can't issue it. The fact that none of us have reported you and that you have not found your blog taken down speaks volumes to the fact that your statements are completely false. If Alex or Jim were trying to "censor, restrict, and eliminate," they could do it to you like that. You gave them the tools. Think about it. Every time you use that lie on the blog that they did not have taken away from you, you expose your own hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Okay I'm not even going to complain about the deleting of comments, you are perfectly within your rights to do so, because deleting has nothing at all to do with copyright. If I buy a copy of Stephen King's "The Shining" I can toss it in the fire. Copyright has nothing at all to do with destroying something it only has to do with making copies, that's why its called copyright. You are claiming copyright for no reason since you are already within your rights to delete comments.

    Now here's the thing, Dan, Google own blogger. Google owns this blog. You do not own it. The terms of service says everyone retains the rights to what they've written. As long as your blog belongs to Google you have to play by their rules. You cannot claim copyright on other people's comments, because you do not own this blog space.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Max I understand. The rule I set on this blog is an AGREEMENT. In order to comment here you MUST agree to release your rights of your comments to me. Consider it as a gift. :7)

      That was what Alex tried to do. BUT, you make an excellent point and we need to researce Skype to see if they have similar copyright rules (just noticed my prior spelling error) or what people say and maybe we can get Alex on that technicality also. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Apparently Skype had fair use policies also. So Alex was wrong to insist as he did. Actually I believe Alex was violating Skype policy and should, and could, be banned from Skype. If I was an Atheist I might persue that type of avenue.

      Delete
    3. Dan...did you not understand what Max said?
      Now here's the thing, Dan, Google own blogger. Google owns this blog. You do not own it. The terms of service says everyone retains the rights to what they've written. As long as your blog belongs to Google you have to play by their rules. You cannot claim copyright on other people's comments, because you do not own this blog space.

      What that means, Dan is that you can not do what you say here:
      Yes Max I understand. The rule I set on this blog is an AGREEMENT. In order to comment here you MUST agree to release your rights of your comments to me. Consider it as a gift. :7)


      You have also not paid attention to what pvblivs said:
      You are lying again. Have you seen Alex delete Sye's comments from his blog? Of course not, because he lets them stand. And what's with this "his own voice" lie you keep giving? Do you think it just sounds better? You know full well that Sye wasn't using just his own voice. He was selling Alex's and Jim's voices (with some of the words and statements edited out to serve his purposes.)

      Delete
    4. >>Dan...did you not understand what Max said?

      You mean barely asserted that you took on faith?

      >>What that means, Dan is that you can not do what you say here:

      Whatever. If I say that everyone has to pay me a dollar to comment here then THAT will be the AGREEMENT

      >>You know full well that Sye wasn't using just his own voice.

      Evidence please.

      >>He was selling Alex's and Jim's voices (with some of the words and statements edited out to serve his purposes.)

      Evidence please!!!!!

      Delete
    5. "If I say that everyone has to pay me a dollar to comment here then THAT will be the AGREEMENT"

      No, THAT will be what gets your blog shut down.

      Delete
    6. Huh? You can listen to the unedited version of Sye's last encounter with Alex and Jim on their podcast site. Compare that with what Sye used for commercial purposes.

      As for the google rules that Max mentioned, just read them!

      "Barely asserted", holy shit. Just read google's own terms of service. Are you that stupid?

      Delete
  20. D.A.N., the more you write the more obvious it becomes that your moral compass is very, very warped. You are also a really good example of what cognitive dissonance does to rational thought. Your depravity is obvious to every rational person here but yourself, and "rational" is almost certainly the wrong word to describe your thought, anyway.

    Keep writing! You are making the case for atheism so easy to present.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK we get it you do not like me by your gripes. Now, how about telling us HOW "the more I write the more obvious it becomes that my moral compass is very, very warped?"

      Baseless assertions are baseless

      Delete
    2. Your blog is all the basis any critic of your world view needs, Dan.

      Delete
  21. Dan:

         You should know that I copied one of Alex's comments on to my own blog, so that it survived your wanton deletion. You have already admitted, accidentally, that you don't think Sye's actions constituted "fair use." Alex's actual restrictions, as opposed to your lies, were quite reasonable. Sye didn't like those restrictions (no editing to turn your opponent's statements into a straw-man, no commercialization for profit.) And you lie to defend him, saying that Sye was taken down for "using his own voice." That's not true. You know it's not true. But you keep saying it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pvb,

      I thought you were better then bare assertions:

      (no editing to turn your opponent's statements into a straw-man, no commercialization for profit.)

      Make that, barely asserted, case then. Go ahead. Catch me in that supposed "lie" if you can. We will wait.

      Delete
    2. BTW this is a red herring to the original post. But why not, let's hear that case against Sye.

      Delete
    3. Dan, you're fucking insane

      Delete
    4. "let's hear that case against Sye."

      1. Sye agreed to appear on the Fundamentally Flawed Podcast

      2. Jim read a set of terms at the beginning of the recording making it clear that we would not give permission for the audio to be edited, used commercially, or uploaded to a Christian channel on Youtube. Jim asked Sye if he understood.

      3. Sye explicitly said that he understood the terms.

      4. Seemingly perfectly happy with those terms, Sye continued with the debate, only to run away moments later when he realised he might have to actually provide some evidence for the existence of his god, and that his usual blizzard of bullshit wasn't going to fly.

      5. Crown Rights Media then uploaded an edited version of the audio, complete with commercial adverts for Sye's site and their own company, and minus any attribution onto their Christian channel on Youtube - DIRECTLY contravening the agreement Sye himself had made.

      6. That video was pulled down after a successful DMCA claim.

      7. Not satisfied Sye then reuploaded the exact same video onto HIS Christian Youtube channel, again containing commercial adverts for both his website and Crown Rights Media, and again failing to correctly attribute the source of the audio.

      8. The video was again successfully removed from Youtube.

      So, there's the case. Sye agreed to certain terms enabling him to appear on our podcast, he then broke those terms in every single way possible afterwards, proving that his word is worth nothing and that he has zero integrity or honour.

      And yet Dan defends him.

      Delete
    5. As you keep on deleting the 'case against Sye' I've posted a handy step by step guide over on my blog.

      http://anatheistviewpoint.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-video-situation-clarified-as-dan-marvin-seems-a-little-confused/

      Dan, you've dug yourself into a very deep hole with this, not a single visitor to this blog thinks you're right, and it's telling that none of your fellow theists have ridden to your aid.

      Face it, your Cult Leader has left you to swing.

      Delete
    6. "let's hear that case against Sye."

      Here it is, again. I know you'll delete this as well Dan, as you clearly don't want visitors to your blog seeing just how catastrophically wrong you've got this!

      http://anatheistviewpoint.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-video-situation-clarified-as-dan-marvin-seems-a-little-confused/

      Delete
    7. You know, Dan, for someone who claims to value the truth, asking for a case against your point of view and then repeatedly ignoring it is ...

      Well, you know what it implies.

      Delete
  22. Dan:

         Alex has already made the case, including providing the audio of the actual agreement. He even included Sye's edits while they were still up. Right now, you're just playing dumb. "Nope, I don't remember that. I only heard Sye's voice." But my statements are witness statements. I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I like how in Dan's worldview a few eyewitness accounts is enough to prove murder have a person put to death, but its not enough to prove copyright infringement. We all saw the youtube video. We all know Sye's voice was not the only one in the video. If this was about Sye's voice he could have spent a few seconds recording the same words again with no copyright violations. This is not about Sye using his own voice.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Interesting, Dan. I've never seen you so far on the wrong side of an argument. You're flailing wildly, and not making any sense.
    Sye consciously agreed to conditions. He broke those commitments. Nothing can be any clearer.

    I recommend that you don't post when your anger overtakes your emotions. This is absurd beyond description.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Poor befuddled Dan doesn't understand that we at no point claimed to have the rights to Sye's voice! The strawmen Dan is throwing up in a desperate attempt to back up his argument are getting more and more ludicrous.

    Dan, I know you'll delete this, but you KNOW deep down that you're on a hiding to nothing, and that you're making yourself look really bad.

    I'd recommend apologising for being so insanely wrong, but I know you have too much pride to do such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The thing that Alex and Jim are obviously not getting is that I have my OWN recording (which I can prove as I have elements which they have not uploaded). If they can upload their version, surely I can upload mine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sye,

      I would contest it to YouTube and force Alex to take you to court on it, or he will be forced to reinstate the contested video. It certainly can be shown that they demand things against their own practices. Same as they know God's existence, but denies it.

      Exposing their fundamentally flawed worldviews, especially in a public court, would be worth a simple form to fill out. Hopefully it will deter the Atheists from doing such tactics in the future to others. It would pave the way for other Christians to fight back for bully tactics of the Atheists, just like PPSIMMONS. Maybe even repentance will come from the Atheists. Now that miracle, would be worth posting about.

      These tactics will not just go away unless they are called out on it. To say you do not have permission to your own voice is absurd, and needs to be contested.

      If you expose Atheists hypocrisy, that can only be a good thing. Your call though.

      Delete
    2. Sye, you entered into an agreement with Alex and Jim when you chose to be on their podcast. If you were making your own recording, the honest thing would have been to tell them you were going to record it for your own purposes, since it was their podcast. You said you agreed to their terms. Whether or not you made a recording is irrelevant since it was their show and you agreed to their terms. Quite being a lying cheat.

      Delete
    3. DAN,
      You are so hung up on using one's own voice and protecting Sye, it's just sickening. I can use my own voice, sing someone else's song and guess what? I've violated their copyright. Using my own voice is irrelevant. The agreement was to not use the debate on Jim and Alex's forum for whatever purpose without their consent. Sye chose to use the debate for his own purpose, without their consent, thus he violated the copyright. All you're doing is trying to make excuses for Sye's behavior. It isn't flying. It doesn't matter if it's my voice, the pope's voice or Johnny Cash's voice. If there's an agreement, verbal or written, then that's the the deal.

      Delete
    4. I should clarify...if I sing the song in a public venue, then I've violated the copyright.

      Delete
    5. Yes Dan, I contested the take-down as soon as I got it.

      The funny thing is that any agreement was for the debate and, as is clear from the audio, the debate never started! Alex and Jim also have a habit of airing portions recorded that were not intended for the podcast as they did this time as well. Surely they can have no objections to my airing of an unedited segment of MY recording on my channel.

      I trust that any judge will see that the agreement was for the debate itself, which never happened, and that I was perfectly within my rights to air that clip. We shall see!

      Delete
    6. Horse shit!

      Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the lengths that Sye will go to to try and weasel out of a clearly documented agreement!

      "Alex and Jim also have a habit of airing portions recorded that were not intended for the podcast as they did this time as well"

      More horse shit! The recording CLEARLY has me introducing the show BEFORE Jim read his terms! Sye, you're getting desperate here!

      Delete
    7. "More horse shit! The recording CLEARLY has me introducing the show BEFORE Jim read his terms!"

      Ya might wanna listen to that again sunshine :-)

      Delete
    8. Listen to what, your version where you chop that part off? Sorry, I'm sticking with the original, you bullshit artist.

      Delete
    9. "Sorry, I'm sticking with the original, you bullshit artist."

      Ya, I meant his version :-D If you can hear Alex introduce the show before Jim read his terms than you need your head or ears examined, or both.

      Why do you guys insist on making this so easy?

      Delete
    10. Because you are so fucking dishonest?

      Delete
    11. Besides your being dishonest, let's see: Why did you edit out the agreement then, if you knew that you did nothing wrong?

      Delete
    12. //"Why did you edit out the agreement then"//

      Erm, perhaps because it wasn't part of the podcast? The video contains the point from the time they introduced me to the time I left in its entiretly unedited. Alex has to say that the introduction came BEFORE Jim read his terms, in a vain attempt to prop up his pathetic "argument," but the evidence is clear for all to hear.

      If they are foolish enough to take this to court, which they very well might be, I'm game. I suspect though, that since Alex has been caught out AGAIN, he will likely just cuss at me then make some lame excuse for why they are not persuing the matter.

      Delete
    13. So the fact that you quit before the "debate" which you were denied permission for give you permission to muck about with the rest of it?

      Is that your reasoning here? Do you really think that anyone will believe that, other then yourself?

      I hope to see how you make this fly in court.


      Never ever take a xian at face value. That's the only thing you're good for teaching, Sye. Thanks.

      Delete
    14. If you want to play semantics then: One can easily say that there was a debate; (why I had it in quotes) you just made it really really really short, and conceded that you have no new arguements.

      Face it; no one will buy that idiotic excuse of yours above.

      Delete
    15. Wait...I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here: When they say "I think those two little bits at the beginning make quite a good introduction to the podcast altogether..." is this the "introduction" that you were referring to?

      It seems that from that statement they consider THOSE to be part of the introduction. In that case, you lose because that consist of them talking with you a bit BEFORE the terms were read. Then there's also the opening intro theme music...

      Delete
    16. Sye, considering you're calling the audio 'my shortest debate ever' indicates that you felt it WAS the debate.

      OOPS!

      You have zero comprehension of how much damage you're doing to your own reputation here, have you? I can hardly see people queueing up to have you as a guest on their podcasts after this, as you've shown your word is worth nothing and that you can't be trusted.

      Delete
    17. Duh, Alex,

      1. What was the title of the video? "Never Surrender! Sye Ten Bruggencate refuses to debate Atheist" Also if you look at the description to the video where I say my shortest debate ever, "debate" is in quotes. Nice try though.

      2. What happened to: "The recording CLEARLY has me introducing the show BEFORE Jim read his terms!"

      OOPS!

      As far as reputation goes, looks like you are projecting again there Sunshine.

      My response to your friend is here: http://offenseofthefaith.com/blog/because-you-asked-so-nicely-jim

      Delete
    18. sye, I clearly state that Jim's reading of the terms is the intro, you didn't object at the time, so you have no grounds to do so now!

      you are coming across as pathologically dishonest - is that the impression you're aiming for?

      Delete
    19. "sye, I clearly state that Jim's reading of the terms is the intro"

      Hmm, starting to suspect the drugs again there Alex. You said:

      "The recording CLEARLY has me introducing the show BEFORE Jim read his terms!" which is CLEARLY not the case.

      "you didn't object at the time, so you have no grounds to do so now!"

      Erm, you hadn't filed your lame takedown yet either. I didn't complain when you did it to Eric and me either, that does not, however, mean that I have no grounds for a complaint now.

      "you are coming across as pathologically dishonest"

      The delusion, it runs deep with you Alex!

      Delete
    20. ah, the old 'accuse my opponent of talking drugs' gambit! you must be aware that you've lost if you're deploying that!

      Delete
    21. "The delusion, it runs deep with you Alex!"

      So, you read the comments here, dozens and dozens calling you various variations on 'dishonest' yet you think *I'M* the one suffering from a delusion??

      Delete
    22. Then you should probably speak to a doctor.

      Delete
    23. http://youtu.be/UvxVleHOwXg

      Delete
  27. Sye, you dishonest dumbass...it was on their show where you agreed to not use that recording for commercial purposes.

    So you just made you own altered copy of that very same recording and figure that's a loophole?

    The fuck? Is this how apologetic reasoning goes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>So you just made you own altered copy of that very same recording and figure that's a loophole?

      Any evidence for this accusation and bare assertion Reynold? Or are cheerleaders not privileged to that kind of information?

      Delete
    2. Dan, are you unaware that Sye posted an edited version of the audio? The evidence was on his page...well, until I got it taken down that is!

      Sye, you were appearing on OUR podcast, you acknowledged the terms, and tacitly agreed to them by not hanging up once they had been explained to you. It doesn't matter that you recorded at your end - you may as well say that an actor in a film has a right to release a version of the latest blockbuster filmed on their phone at the same time as the real cameras for all the sense you're talking.

      Delete
    3. Dan...all you have to do is listen to the podcast from Alex's site which I linked to before, then listen to Sye's copy.

      The evidence is all right there. What's wrong with you?

      Delete
  28. What is hilarious here is, speaking of cognitive dissonance, that Alex has as his rules for comments: "Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it"

    Then Alex proceeded to act THAT exact way here and gets all butthurt that he is getting removed on this blog. Alex also is getting upset AND keeps posting here AFTER I SET TERMS for posting here, essentially violating the therms of the agreement I set forth. Once again the EXACT thing he complains about JUST like his "Batman" leader. This was the goal all along, to expose the hypocrisy of these two.

    This kind of comedy you cannot make up. Alex has certainly given evidence to his hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance, and the reason for the post here. Mission accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's HILARIOUS that you keep deleting me! And you've already had it pointed out to you that you can't set terms for posting here as Google owns this blog.

      Delete
  29. Dan:

         He did not violate the terms of the agreement because there was no agreement. Your unilateral declaration does not make an agreement.
         "Then Alex proceeded to act THAT exact way here"
         No, Dan, he didn't. I might be inclined to accept your assessment if, for example, you were removing comments for foul language, particularly if you had warned him that such language was not acceptable on this blog. But thet is not why you are deleting his comments. You have openly stated that you are a dishonest fundamentalist christian and are deleting his comments because he refuses to transfer his copyright over to you. You have accomplished a mission. But it is not the one you pretend. But then fundamentalist christians gotta lie.

    Sye:

         Copying and editing Alex's and Jim's recording is called a "derivative work." As a result, it is still their copyright.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Phantom Alex,

    >>And you've already had it pointed out to you that you can't set terms for posting here as Google owns this blog.

    Said the "man" who has on his blog >>"Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it"

    Cognitive dissonance wheee!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too bad no one can cure you of it, Dan. The copyright laws have been explained, both for googleblogs and for the video that Sye mis-used.

      You obviously don't give a damn for truth anymore, if you ever did.

      Delete
    2. Forgot: Look carefully at Alex's site. It's not a google blogs site; it's wordpress.

      Delete
  31. "To catch you up, Jim and his "Robin" Alex demanded unfairly that Sye could not use his own voice from the Skype conversation that they had, for any purpose. But "Batman and Robin" proclaimed they could use it freely on their blogs, podcast, and YouTube"

    This factually incorrect. I've written a total of five comment replies on my blog explaining why you have you this completely wrong. If you're not prepared to correct this story, removing the parts which accuse us of saying something we did not, I will apply to the blogger admins to remove it.

    To be perfectly clear, for the sixth and final time:
    Sye was not told he could not use the recording. He was told he could not use it for financial gain, or edit out our full remarks.

    The reason for this stipulation, was that he had already suggested he might break our original agreement, not to use the recording of our first podcast conversation with Eric Hovind, by selling a DVD of the conversation on we had on Hovind's site.

    That is why we read the disclaimer, and that is why we specifically included YouTube in the agreement, which Sye verbally agreed to TWICE.

    No-one, repeat NO-ONE is suggesting for one single solitary second, that Sye cannot do whatever he wants with the recording, so long as he doesn't break our agreement that he should not profit from it.

    If he had sought our agreement, for it to be used, he would have been told the same thing we told Eric Hovind; that we have no problem with him making it available for sale, as long as he gives the profits to the Doctors Without Borders charity. But he didn't even ask. He just went ahead and used it anyway.

    If you do not amend the above blog entry, to reflect the actual facts of this story, you'll find out the hard way what happens to people who use my name to spread slanderous lies, in the name of blatant profiteering. You've been asked politely. I won't ask twice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Appeal to popularity - FTW

      Just because you claim something as "the truth" does NOT make it truth. These are my opinions on the subject. You don't have to like it for it to be "accepted"

      My claim is that you are a huge fan of censorship, restricting, eliminating, and hypocrisy. That is my claim. Your comments, and threats, here about "finding out the hard way" just affirmed that. Thanks

      Delete
    2. Dan
      Appeal to popularity - FTW

      Just because you claim something as "the truth" does NOT make it truth. These are my opinions on the subject. You don't have to like it for it to be "accepted"

      It's not an "appeal to popularity". The evidence has all been recorded of what Sye did. I can't believe that you still think that he's in the right...Sye broke the agreement that he made with the FF crew. He sold an altered version of their broadcast with him.

      Here's the point that you are dishonestly trying to evade, Dan: If Sye had not altered the recording OR tried to profit from it, Jim and Alex would have no problem in letting Sye use it otherwise.

      Yet you still go on about their censorship and hypcrisy?

      Bullshit, Dan. They said that Sye could use that recording provided that he didn't try to make profit from it, OR edit it.

      How is that "censorship"?


      Sye went and edited it. That is closer to true "censorship" than what you're accusing Dan of.

      Dan, it's you who have been making baseless assertions about this whole thing. Time to either back up what you say or come clean.

      You will of course, do neither.

      Delete
  32. Of course I have not deleted anyones comments here. That would go against whst i believe and fight for. I was hopeful the Atheists would of seen how that makes others feel though when that shoe is on the other foot. It appears to have touched a nerve. So the Atheists have not disappointed here. Maybe they will take something away from all of this.

    We should be more of liberty, freedom, allowing, and accountability. We are completely on opposite sides of the planet for now. You, and your type, are the reason why there are problems in this world.

    As one Atheist said to me: "Are you implying that atheists are litigious? I should sue you for that..."

    So we should “Let him without sin cast the first stone”

    ” Therefore, whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same for them—this is the Law and the Prophets.” ~Matthew 7:12

    Let others be heard, and stop being hypocrites Atheists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How are we being hypocrites? We're not the ones taking down comments pal...

      You, and your type, are the reason why there are problems in this world.
      So now you're blaming atheists for all the problems in the world? So the pedophile priest problem in the Catholic church is that atheists fault? Deaths that result from people taking their kids to faith-healers instead of doctors is the fault of atheists?

      Dan...you utterly refuse to see how you're wrong here, even though it's been explained to you over and over again...you accuse atheists of censorship even though it's been repeatedly explained how Sye broke the agreement, and that if he hadn't altered the recording or used to for profit, Alex and Jim would have had no problem with him using it.

      You bleat about "accountability" above Dan...where in the hell is yours?

      Dan
      Let others be heard, and stop being hypocrites Atheists.
      Stop being a liar, Dan.

      They are letting others being heard. All of Sye's (and Dustin's and Hezekiah's) peformances are on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast download lists! Their comments are still on their blogs.

      And again, remember: If Sye hadn't altered the recording and tried to make a profit from it, this would not have happened!

      It's you who should stop being a hypocrite and start holding your fellow god-bot Sye to some accountability. Instead of holding him to account for breaking the agreement he made with Alex and Jim, you're just cheering him on.

      I guess denial, dishonesty, projection and hypocrisy are some of the "fruits of the holy spirit" then, or what?

      Delete
    2. Reynold, remember Dan is the man who stated that atheists are to blame for children getting cancer. I (correctly) dubbed him a 'cunt' for that particular pearl of shite.

      Lying, baseless accusations, transference....all the tools of Dan Marvin - what a fine advert for Christianity he is!

      I know it's been asked before, but do you think he lets his kids read his blog?

      Delete
  33. "Of course I have not deleted anyones comments here. "

    Are you utterly mad?? You've deleted dozens of mine!!

    In fact, here are you OWN WORDS admitting it! "Then Alex proceeded to act THAT exact way here and gets all butthurt that he is getting removed on this blog"

    It doesn't matter that you've subsequently reinstated them, YOU REMOVED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

    You've gone loopy, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "So we should “Let him without sin cast the first stone” "

    As I don't believe in 'sin' would you like me to start?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Whether Sye had his own recording or not, Jim and Alex would have had to give him permission to use their voice, and I plainly heard Jim's voice on the production that was taken down.

    Not to mention to record someone without prior knowledge is illegal in most places also, even if one side is recording, that's why you can get telemarketers to stop calling by saying "I record all conversations." at the beginning of the call, all recordings HAVE to be made known prior to the conversation, so sounds like Sye was the next kiddo to jump into the deep end and begin flailing.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dan seems to be genuinely under the misunderstanding that we censored Sye, if that were the case (as pointed out elsewhere) the full audio of all our encounters would NOT be available via iTunes.

    Dan, please explain how making Sye's words available for free via the worlds largest distribution network is 'censoring' him? I'd LOVE to know....

    ReplyDelete
  37. You have six hours remaining to correct the factual inaccuracies in this article.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This was a hilarious read!

    On another note, I am extremely disappointed to find out that Sye and Chris Bolt won't be furnishing a response to episode 98 of the Reasonable Doubts podcast after being challenged to do so.

    I wonder if anybody will step up to defend this cultish Internet apologetic.

    Is anybody willing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya Justin, I was, as I told you, willing to appear on your podcast, but you were not interested, perhaps reflecting on how that went for you last time.

      Delete
    2. Sye, you're a living example of the Dunning Krueger.

      Delete
    3. To expand on that - you repeatedly get your arse handed to you, and you run away crowing that you've 'won'.

      I've yet to hear a SINGLE debate online that you have managed to win, but I'm tripping over dozens and dozens where you've been thoroughly shown up.

      Delete
    4. "you run away crowing that you've 'won'."

      Alex, please cut and paste where I have claimed to win any debate. Thanks.

      Delete
    5. You need to look up the meaning of the words 'innuendo' and 'inference, Sye.

      Really, your 'I don't know what you're talking about' innocent schtick is utterly transparent!

      Sye, you come across as prideful and vain - is that the 'Christian image' you're trying to portray? No wonder you've never converted anyone!

      Delete
    6. Oh, so you were caught out - AGAIN Alex. Surprised that you never tire of that :-)

      Delete
    7. where? I correctly point put that you constantly infer that you've 'won't debates, and that your 'I dont know what you mean' act is transparent.

      sye, you're significantly less clever than you think you are.

      Delete
    8. "where?"

      You shouldn't use words like "crowing" if you do not know what they mean Alex (or if you can't prove your allegation :-)

      Delete
    9. sye, the evidence of your crowing is clear for all to see, you've even done it on this page.

      Delete
    10. Sye TenB
      Alex, please cut and paste where I have claimed to win any debate. Thanks
      Well, let's see: Here where you said

      Ya Justin, I was, as I told you, willing to appear on your podcast, but you were not interested, perhaps reflecting on how that went for you last time

      Or was this referring to Justin having a debate with someone else?

      Delete
    11. Reynold, Sye will try to argue that *heavily insinuating* that he won a debate is NOT the same as stating it outright - he's much like a child in that respect.

      He makes his entire living from feeble word games, so it should come as no surprise to see him employing them in every area of his life.

      Delete
  39. You can find it on YouTube "reasonable doubts presuppositionalism 1/4"

    ReplyDelete
  40. Good luck with that Justin, I don't know of many more that can actually string a full sentence together. Maybe Hezekiah will prostitute himself to you, despite having little understanding of his own argument.

    ReplyDelete
  41. So if my math is correct, there's less than an hour for this post to be altered?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I don't think they are idiots. They are actually quite intelligent. My problem is that the degree of cognitive dissonance they can wrestle with is astounding and disturbing.

    It's either that or pure cowardice and unflinching dishonesty and I would rather not think of them that way.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "So "Batman" is a huge fan of censorship, restricting, eliminating, and hypocrisy. This is his M.O."

    Typical of that lot.

    What amazes me is that these narcissistic, incestuous misotheists who claim to love "reason" and "logic" will not only commit frequent logical fallacies, but invent new combinations. How stupid is that?

    You did not name anyone, but atheo-fascists are whining about it, and identifying themselves. "Dan said factually inaccurate things about me". Uh, good going, genius. Your name isn't in the article, and you just made claim to it. How stupid is that?

    I've had atheo-fascists so stupidified by hate, they identified themselves. More than once! One time was right on my Weblog by old Hail Satan boy hisself. (It was in the comments, but I stopped doing comments for assorted reasons, and I seriously doubt that haters will figure them out despite their fallacious appeals to motive.) Anyway... How stupid is that?

    Dan, I joined the chorus and did a post about PPsimmons. Glad to have them back up and running. (The nice people gave The Question Evolution Project a mention, too.)

    Amazing, innit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob Sorensen
      "So "Batman" is a huge fan of censorship, restricting, eliminating, and hypocrisy. This is his M.O."

      Typical of that lot.

      Look who's talking about censorship: the coward who doesn't allow comments on his blog.

      In contrast, Alex, Jim and others of "that lot" do allow others to comment on their blogs.

      Until you man up coward, you have no right to whine about others doing "censorship".

      For that matter, you haven't even shown any intelligence in your comments here. You, like Dan have completely missed the issue here:

      Sye broke the agreement he made with Jim and Alex. As a result, that ONE recording was taken down. As I pointed out to Dan: All of the other encounters with Sye, Hezekiah, and the other god-bots are on the FF podcast download site.

      Yet you complain of "censorship"?

      To top it off, after all those mistakes you made in your rambling, you talk about the "atheo-fascists" being "so stupidified by hate"?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  44. Amazing how lovers of "logic" and "reason" do such ridiculous things. They complain about hypocrisy, usually inaccurately, then commit ten times worse themselves. Morality? Nah, we hate st00pid dumb Xtians so much, the end justifies the means, Mein Herr. How fascist is that?

    Seems to me that you do not have anybody named here. So what's the problem? I had a story, and one of these atheo-fascists claimed that it was about him. Another time, I wrote an article about an incident, leaving out names. The rocket surgeon identified himself in the then-existing comments of my Weblog! How stupid is that?

    Speaking of stupid... Hatred stupidifies. Watch how they cheer each other in their narcissistic incestuous hate fests, but then when they try to show how smrt they are, they break laws of logic. In fact, I think they make up new ways to commit fallacies. It drives them up the wall when a st00pid dumb old Xtian points out their fallacies, you betcha. How good is that? LOL!

    Hey, I joined the chorus and put up a post about PPsimmons. Glad to have them back in action. The nice people gave me a shout out for The Question Evolution Project, too. How cool is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a question of sticks and stones, Captain Facts, it's a straightforward libel. Get your tongue out of his mouth.

      Delete
  45. bob, you need to read up about libel via innuendo.

    as for dan's article, well he mentions with Jim and I by name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. though I see he's subsequently edited the piece to remove our names, too late Dan! You should join blob in reading up about libel via innuendo

      Delete
  46. You've removed our names but left in the lies. Since everyone who has seen this article is in no doubt as to who you are referring to, the libel still stands.

    No doubt you edited out our names, because you received a notice from Google warning you of the libel. Do you want me to contact them again, risking the possibility they might suspend your account, or do you want to adhere to your full legal obligation to remove the factual inaccuracies as well?

    ReplyDelete
  47.      Does anyone here really believe that Norman didn't read the post while it still had names up? I don't. Oh, I suppose it's possible; but I don't believe it. So, when he says that Dan didn't name anyone and that non-christians "identified themselves" he is lying. Things that might convince me that it was an honest mistake instead of a lie would include a sincere apology on his part. But, from what I've seen, Norman doesn't do apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hey Dan, is Sye a child, and are you his parent? I mean you may think the terms Sye agreed to were unfair, but that's irrelevant, Sye accepted the fairness of the terms and agreed to them. I'm just wondering why you are better suited than Sye to determine if the agreement is fair. And also why you think its okay for Sye to break the terms he agreed to. Presumably Sye is a child or in some other way mentally incapable, and he needs you to look out for his interests.

    ReplyDelete
  49. You have a bad case of "taint', hypocrites. 'Tain't libel if there are no names, but you morons come forward and claim that the stuff is about YOU. My, what massive egos!

    Atheists (and atheists pretending to be deists) are amazingly blatant hypocrites. You conduct libel yourselves, use other people's work without permission, there are allegations of illegally recorded Skype calls &c.

    Where's that "tolerance"? You lot are astounding bigots. Since you cannot defeat with logic (I doubt that certain people here will ever get a grasp of it), you resort to ridicule, assertions, accusations and blithering stupidity.

    Then you cry when you get called on it. Take a good look, world. These are the harbingers of "reason". Fortunately, their version of reason does not have anything to do with reality, and their numbers are small. Atheism is dying out because people can't stand their stinking attitudes and lack of logic. Take a look at the "logic" that "offended" people are using right here. 'Tain't no case, O thou lovers of free speech. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  50. You conduct libel yourselves, use other people's work without permission, there are allegations of illegally recorded Skype calls &c.
    Citations needed.

    Good grief. It's not about "egos", it's about all the little tidbits of information you put in your posts that led them to realize who you were talking about.

    How childish and ignorant of libel laws are you?

    Also, how cowardly are you that you don't allow comments on your blog? And you criticize us when it comes to free speech?

    ReplyDelete
  51. "'Tain't libel if there are no names"

    Really?

    "What if I change the person's name?

    To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president."

    (From here - https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation, and it's not the only place that says that)

    Bob, if the person can be reasonably identified* then it IS libel. Oh dear!


    *such as by mentioning the person's view of religion, the area they live in, the type of computer they use, and maybe even including a map of their town.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Atheism is dying out because people can't stand their stinking attitudes and lack of logic."

    Unsurprisingly Blob gets it wrong again

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111885128

    http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Agnostic-Belief-Survey/a/Atheists-Growing-Numbers.htm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/01/atheism-america-religious-right

    (amongst many many MANY sources)

    Oh dear (again)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Blobby should read this - http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/christians_help_atheism.htm

    ReplyDelete
  54. I got Halloween Boy ("Hail, Samhain!") angry again, didn't I? Doesn't take much when your life is consumed with hate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob, you can't even get where I live right!

      Delete
    2. Not going to comment on your error about libel, Bob? Not going to comment on the FACT that you're currently wide open?

      Delete
    3. Bob, you do realize that by taking a shot at "halloween boy" what you have just done, right?

      Delete
    4. I don't think he does, Reynold, I don't think he realises that he's just turned the libel explicit. silly man!

      Delete
  55. Norman:

         "Doesn't take much when your life is consumed with hate."
         I suppose you would be one to know. All the available evidence tells me that your life is consumed by hate.

    Dan:

         Despite Norman coming to your defense, you might be interested in thoughts I have posted on my own blog about this.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ok, so it seems we now have 3 children in the deep end flailing...

    What gets me is they call their argument for their faith "Apologetics", you would think they would be used to saying sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Okay Dan I`ll make this easy, I'll make a list of descriptive sentences and you can tell me which ones apply to Sye. You don't have to pick only one you can choose as many as apply.

    Sye:
    a) is an autonomous adult responsible for his actions, including any agreements he makes.
    b) is a child, or otherwise mentally incapable of being held responsible for his actions.
    c) can judge for himself whether an proposed agreement is fair to him, and he is in fact the best person to judge such a thing.
    d) too stupid to judge whether an agreement is fair, as evidenced by the fact that he entered an agreement I(Dan) have judged to be unfair. I(Dan) know what's best for other people better than they do.
    e) is a liar. He knew just as I(Dan) do that the terms were unfair, but instead of telling them the terms were unfair and leaving, he accepted the terms with the intention to break them.
    f)_________________(write in your own response)

    ReplyDelete
  58. --> Insert cricket sounds here <--

    ReplyDelete
  59. Oh, by the way: In regards to how dishonest Sye is when it comes to recording things:

    Caught out again, in an older example.

    ReplyDelete
  60. This is totally not subject related. I just recently came across your blog site and I just had to say it rocks! Very cool! I rarely blog myself anymore (Not since 2010) but I appreciate your subject matter. Awesome!!!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dan, have you noticed the blatant hypocrisy and utter stupidity of certain atheopaths? They get spanked in matters of simple logic, then think they're knowledgeable about international law. They cry "libel", but are guilty of true and documented offenses themselves (I have screen shots of some in action). Wow, I still can't get over the astonishing idiocy of identifying with posts, "He's talking about me, boo freaking hoo!") Some cry about "free speech" and "censorship" when they cannot post what they want, when they want, anywhere they want, and then practice censorship on their own Weblogs. Then, since they are intellectually outclassed and cannot defeat people through actual discussion, they want to have people silenced. How obtuse is that? How disingenuous is that? How hypocritical is that? How hilarious is that? I laugh at them, do you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob? Hello? Are you there? C'mon! You've a big mouth when you think you're safe! Let's see you man up and speak to me one on one like an adult!

      Delete
  62. If such a case was not laughed out of court at the onset (many butthurt internet users are not mature enough to be using computers), the complaintants would need to demonstrate that they were damaged. From their actions here and reading some blogs, their own libelous actions would disqualify them and they would not receive one farthing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob, why do you feel the need to use so many sockpuppets?

      Delete
  63. no, bob, we don't want you silenced, we just want you and your ilk to not write libelous garbage about us.

    ReplyDelete
  64. bob, now you have clearly started using skype, why don't you man up and debate Jim and I?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Perhaps this is why Botten is so bitchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should that bother me? Please explain why an issue that has befallen someone else I don't know should worry me in the slightest?

      Delete
    2. Alex,

      >>No? Not got a reply?

      How about you? Do you have a reply as to your failed tactic?

      http://youtu.be/UvxVleHOwXg

      Delete
    3. Yes, I have a reply. Youtube are wrong, and it doesn't alter the facts that $ye, your cult leader, has infringed copyright, as well as going back on the very terms he agreed to before appearing on our podcast.

      Still, I don't expect honour or manners to be something a fundamentalist Christian should bother themselves about.

      Delete
  66. Bob said...

    Dan, have you noticed the blatant hypocrisy and utter stupidity of certain atheopaths?

    Bob's projecting again - he sees his own hypocrisy and stupidity and just wishes he could see it in those who do not believe as he does ... and because he believes that wishing makes it so he goes ahead and thinks he sees it anyway.

    They get spanked in matters of simple logic,

    I've yet to see Bob or Dan display any understanding of logic - either simple or complex - so his claims to have seen someone else "get spanked" over it are dubious at best.

    then think they're knowledgeable about international law.

    Maybe you'd like to demonstrate where they have been incorrect about it so far? However, I predict you'll refuse to do so as it's your own ignorance of said law that you're attempting to project on to others.

    They cry "libel", but are guilty of true and documented offenses themselves (I have screen shots of some in action).

    Then do what you refuse to do when asked for evidence of your God's existence - actually show some.

    Wow, I still can't get over the astonishing idiocy of identifying with posts, "He's talking about me, boo freaking hoo!")

    Except, of course, that you meant Alex to identify with your post ... you thought you were being funny while you insulted the evil atheist. Shame you're a thick twat who doesn't seem able to tell the difference between humour and libel.

    Some cry about "free speech" and "censorship" when they cannot post what they want, when they want, anywhere they want, and then practice censorship on their own Weblogs.

    Except you've failed to demonstrate that anyone here has practiced any such censorship. Banning people who post defamatory statements isn't censorship Bob.

    Then, since they are intellectually outclassed and cannot defeat people through actual discussion, they want to have people silenced.

    You couldn't intellectually outclass a special needs mollusc Bob. As for silencing, what a joke? No-one is trying to 'silence' anyone - just try to get them to be honest - and now Alex is offering you the chance to have a discussion with him which would be recorded and made available for anyone who cares to listen.

    How obtuse is that?

    None of it is difficult to understand if you look at it logically. Of course if you've abandoned logic, as the theist surely has, then I suppose you might struggle to comprehend.

    How disingenuous is that?

    Not at all.

    How hypocritical is that?

    You have yet to demonstrate that the atheists here have committed any act of hypocrisy. Not unsurprising given you've abandoned the only system of testing claims - reason and logic - in favour of attempting to make the abitrary come true and thinking that wishing makes it so.

    How hilarious is that?

    I've so far failed to find any humour in your comment except for the hilarity - unintended I'm sure - at how you've failed to comprehend most of the previous discussions.

    I laugh at them, do you?

    I'd guess Dan does too, but only because he's displayed a similar disconnect with reality as you do.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Bob doesn't have the first fucking clue about anything, yet he thinks he's Mr Smart.

    ReplyDelete
  68. http://anatheistviewpoint.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/an-open-challenge-to-bob-sorensen-4/ - Bob, are you man enough to finally man up?

    ReplyDelete
  69. C'mon Bob, time to put your mouth where your trousers are.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Wow! Look what is back up for the world to see!

    http://youtu.be/UvxVleHOwXg

    Nothing to see folks. Just hot air coming from the Atheists. :7)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More dishonesty. We can all see Sye running away - and then trying to cash in on his cowardice.

      Delete
    2. "for the world to see"

      conveniently ignoring the FACT that the WHOLE SHOW has been available on both iTunes AND Youtube COMPLETELY UNEDITED for WEEKS.

      Love the way you're seemingly attempting to spin this as if we were trying to hide this show, ¢ye!

      Delete
    3. I have 28 seconds of dialogue between Alex and me, BEFORE what they have posted, yet they call their audio "completely unedited." Special pleading much?

      Delete
    4. Upload it then, let's hear if it helps your case.

      Delete
    5. You see, at the least you've got 28 seconds of 'can you hear me ok? Yes, is that better?' and at most you've got Paul Baird, audio breaking up, explaining that the recording is to be licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0....which directly prohibits derivative (ie edited) or commercial (ie with adverts for your site and Crowns Rights slapped all over it) uses of the audio.

      So, either these 28 seconds do nothing to provide any further info or they hammer another nail into your dishonesty coffin. Put the audio up, let the people decide.

      Delete
    6. Of course it helps my case, or you wouldn't want it :-D

      Delete
    7. "Of course it helps my case, or you wouldn't want it :-D"

      What? That doesn't even make sense! Are you imagining that if you put the audio up for all to hear you no longer have a copy??

      If it supports your dishonesty then you should put it up right now for all to hear.

      Delete
    8. No? Not going to? Your silence speaks volumes, $ye.

      Delete
  71. 00:35 – Jim: Ok. Well let me just..I’ve got some things I want to say first otherwise this isn’t going to happen. I do not give my consent for any part of this debate to be used for commercial purposes either by Sye Tenbruggencate, Eric Hovind or any third party associated with any religious ministry of any kind whatsoever. This includes the use in YouTube videos which may be part of a Google ad sharing revenue scheme. Do you understand what I’ve said so far, yes or no?

    01:01 – Sye: I understand what you’ve said.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Of course it helps my case, or you wouldn't want it :-D"

    Then make it available for all to hear! Look, Sye, Jim has got the compete audio as well, and will be posting it when he gets home on Monday, so there's no point pretending it says something other than it does!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Youtube Got it Wrong" = Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa sniffle.

      Thought you filed another DMCA Alex? Have you finally come to the realization that there are penalties for filing false DMCAs?

      Delete
    2. 00:35 – Jim: Ok. Well let me just..I’ve got some things I want to say first otherwise this isn’t going to happen. I do not give my consent for any part of this debate to be used for commercial purposes either by Sye Tenbruggencate, Eric Hovind or any third party associated with any religious ministry of any kind whatsoever. This includes the use in YouTube videos which may be part of a Google ad sharing revenue scheme. Do you understand what I’ve said so far, yes or no?

      01:01 – Sye: I understand what you’ve said.

      Delete
  73. stop trying to distract from the audio, put up or shut up

    ReplyDelete
  74. where's this audio then? if you claim it vindicates your dishonesty, why aren't you sharing it with the world?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take him to court, and it's all yours. It's called discovery. If you're sure it doesn't exist you would have no problem filing. Now, are you certain that you would win? If so, how? :7)

      Delete
    2. 00:35 – Jim: Ok. Well let me just..I’ve got some things I want to say first otherwise this isn’t going to happen. I do not give my consent for any part of this debate to be used for commercial purposes either by Sye Tenbruggencate, Eric Hovind or any third party associated with any religious ministry of any kind whatsoever. This includes the use in YouTube videos which may be part of a Google ad sharing revenue scheme. Do you understand what I’ve said so far, yes or no?

      01:01 – Sye: I understand what you’ve said.

      Delete
  75. Um, cause I'm saving it for court?

    ReplyDelete
  76. You've got nothing $ye, the only part before the show started was a lot of 'can you hear me ok?' and Paul stating explicitly that the show would be licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0

    As for 'saving it for court' - when, exactly, do you expect to be IN court?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are totally clueless aren't you Alex? Paul is not even in it. That was the previous aborted call.

      Thought you said Jim was going to post it today? Well?

      Delete
    2. "As for 'saving it for court' - when, exactly, do you expect to be IN court?"

      Well, either you are going to have to take me to court to prove your case, or if you keep filing false DMCAs, I will have to take you to court to teach you a lesson.

      Delete
    3. "if you keep filing false DMCAs, I will have to take you to court to teach you a lesson."

      Pray tell, where is the Biblical precedent for that?

      Delete
    4. 00:35 – Jim: Ok. Well let me just..I’ve got some things I want to say first otherwise this isn’t going to happen. I do not give my consent for any part of this debate to be used for commercial purposes either by Sye Tenbruggencate, Eric Hovind or any third party associated with any religious ministry of any kind whatsoever. This includes the use in YouTube videos which may be part of a Google ad sharing revenue scheme. Do you understand what I’ve said so far, yes or no?

      01:01 – Sye: I understand what you’ve said.

      Delete
    5. "Pray tell, where is the Biblical precedent for that?"

      Proverbs 26:5

      Delete
    6. 00:35 – Jim: Ok. Well let me just..I’ve got some things I want to say first otherwise this isn’t going to happen. I do not give my consent for any part of this debate to be used for commercial purposes either by Sye Tenbruggencate, Eric Hovind or any third party associated with any religious ministry of any kind whatsoever. This includes the use in YouTube videos which may be part of a Google ad sharing revenue scheme. Do you understand what I’ve said so far, yes or no?

      01:01 – Sye: I understand what you’ve said.

      Delete
    7. Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

      Yet in the VERY NEXT VERSE it says the opposite! And you lot claim the Bible doesn't contain contradictions.

      BTW, I don't see any mention of taking people to court in that verse.

      Try again, prick.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Are you really that daft Alex, that you think that those verses right next to each other are a contradiction? You really think that those verses were not put back to back on purpose?

      Sometimes I wonder why I even bother responding to you. Thankfully we have a number of direct exchanges where your and Jim's folly is on display for the world to see.

      If you are so confident in your case, quit your whining and take me to court.

      Ciao.

      Delete
    10. Sye, rather than insulting me, why don't you try explaining why 'do' and 'don't' are not contradictory when followed by 'answer the fool according to his folly'?

      Good luck with that.

      Delete
    11. Huh, you really are that daft. Who knew? What is the fools folly? "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1). DO NOT answer the fool according to his presupposition (that there is no God). DO answer the fool exposing the folly of his presupposition.

      Was it really that difficult Alex?

      Delete
    12. $ye, I don't know how things work in your brain (actually, increasingly I DO) but where I come from merely asserting something doesn't make it actually so.

      So, try again.

      Delete
    13. Is that so Alex, or just your unsupported assertion? :-D

      So where is the audio that you said Jim was going to post? Spoke too soon again I see.

      Delete
    14. $ye, I don't know how things work in your head (actually, that's not true, increasingly I DO know how things work in your head - $$$$$$) but where I'm from merely asserting that you've answered something doesn't actually mean that you have.

      Try again

      Delete
  77. This whole thing has been hilarious though, hasn't it? $ye's dishonesty and obsession with $$$$$ has been writ large across the web.

    Thanks $ye, you've done more to harm your reputation than anything so far!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Alex, you guys don't look bad at all for trying to get that video taken down :-D

      Delete
    2. $ye, the only reason we want that video taken down is down to you both editing and commercialising it DESPITE AGREEING NOT TO DO SO.

      It's really that simple.

      How do you sleep at night?

      Delete
    3. 00:35 – Jim: Ok. Well let me just..I’ve got some things I want to say first otherwise this isn’t going to happen. I do not give my consent for any part of this debate to be used for commercial purposes either by Sye Tenbruggencate, Eric Hovind or any third party associated with any religious ministry of any kind whatsoever. This includes the use in YouTube videos which may be part of a Google ad sharing revenue scheme. Do you understand what I’ve said so far, yes or no?

      01:01 – Sye: I understand what you’ve said.

      Delete
    4. "How do you sleep at night?"

      Just fine, thanks for asking. If you are so confident in your case, take me to court Sunshine.

      Delete
    5. 00:35 – Jim: Ok. Well let me just..I’ve got some things I want to say first otherwise this isn’t going to happen. I do not give my consent for any part of this debate to be used for commercial purposes either by Sye Tenbruggencate, Eric Hovind or any third party associated with any religious ministry of any kind whatsoever. This includes the use in YouTube videos which may be part of a Google ad sharing revenue scheme. Do you understand what I’ve said so far, yes or no?

      01:01 – Sye: I understand what you’ve said.

      Delete
    6. Gee Sye: Easy for you to say since I'm sure you know just how "cheap" (sarcasm on) civil suits are eh?

      That and Alex has to take time off from his real job and travel across the ocean to deal with you in court.

      Yep. While you have no honesty, you're at least a decent tactician.

      Delete
  78. Sye
    Yes Alex, you guys don't look bad at all for trying to get that video taken down :-D
    How can they look bad? They have the original unedited recording available for free on their Fundamentally Flawed website as well as all of their other interactions with you.

    So, your point?

    By the way Sye, what charity are you going to be giving the money that you get from your "shows" to?

    Alex and Jim don't take money for their podcasts. They insist that one donates to UNICEF (see sidebar) instead.

    ReplyDelete
  79. come on, $ye, you've still not explained the direct contradiction...I shouldn't be surprised though, we all know the bible is obey of your (many) weak points.

    The audio Jim has has literally two extra seconds, me saying 'let me start recording' - so, present your extra 28 seconds, disprove my claim that they only contain technical talk and Paul explaining that the recording is to be CC 3.0 licensed.

    see, here's the thing, if you had something that changed the context of the conversation away from your blatant dishonesty you'd have posted it by now, especially after fellow Christians have started to question your behaviour. we both know you have nothing, and we both know that's why you're not posting it.

    ReplyDelete
  80. 'obey' = 'one', damned autocorrect on my phone

    ReplyDelete
  81. So in your brain 4chan / trolls = atheists...
    Blog owner is a faggot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? More like reddit/Atheists = zero

      4chan just looks like a porn portal. I don't get the reference.

      Anyway, thanks for bringing that "A" game of yours. You make me feel Faaaaaabulous!! :7)

      Delete
  82. Some illiterate middle eastern farmers made up the bible.

    You unquestioningly believe it.

    I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>Some illiterate middle eastern farmers made up the bible.

      Funny, read sad, that you wrote this in the post named "Atheist's tactics" because it certainly is yet another. Dismissal of the Bible is certainly another "tactic" of self deception. Self deception is very powerful to the mind. Maybe you're intellectually honest enough to admit to that point at least.

      >>You unquestioningly believe it.

      Have you ever heard of the fallacy called "straw-man"? Because you sure use it to perfection.

      >>I rest my case.

      That's it? Hmm, well OK.

      Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

      Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation. Are you prepared to reject nature here also? Bahnsen said.

      "Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

      Delete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>