A reply to Sye’s latest blog

I’m providing an exact copy of my comments on Sye’s latest blog here, so there can be no doubt as to what was said and who said it, in case he decides to edit it at a later date, or just not approve the comments to begin with. It’s not a full reply to each of his “points” because he repeats himself a fair bit and I cover most of his general grievances in the bottom half of the reply.

Readers should note that Sye himself is banned from posting comments here, because of the threats and lies he repeatedly posted here several months ago. And no, I’m not struck by the irony of banning someone who hasn’t banned me. When I start issuing threats on his blog, he’s free to ban me too. Just thought I’d mention that before Dan Marvin’s pussy starts dripping like a fucked fridge.

You can read the original blog here: http://offenseofthefaith.com/blog/because-you-asked-so-nicely-jim/

UPDATE: There appears to be either a software bug with Sye’s comments, where the ‘post’ or ‘send’ buttons don’t appear properly (tried Firefox and Safari) or I’m banned. I’ve emailed the comments to Sye and made him aware that they’re also available here.

UPDATE 2: Sye has posted another reply here: http://offenseofthefaith.com/blog/mostly-crickets/
He still hasn’t enabled comments on his blog / fixed the bug which prevents anyone from replying.

My comments start from his reply…

False. Apparently Jim has a very convenient memory as to how he and Alex said(1) said the podcasts went. Jim admitting to “ridiculous mistakes, and Alex to “flailing hopelessly.” Is there any wonder why Jim and Alex are so angry with me?

You’re referring to the first podcast, in which I have already repeatedly said both on my blog and on the podcast we didn’t perform well. But this isn’t about that podcast (even though you threatened to profit from the sale of that one as well, despite our disclaimer), it’s about the latest podcast, in which you also verbally agreed to two specific stipulations not to edit or post it to YouTube, which you immediately went ahead and did anyway.

False. Jim keeps saying this, but has yet to produce evidence that this was ever communicated to me.

If you were left in any doubt as to why you were invited back onto the podcast, other than to finally present the evidence you repeatedly claim to have but constantly refuse to present — especially given the email exchanges we had in-between podcasts number two and three — you’re even more deluded than I first thought.

False. Nothing mentioned about editing.

You are a pathological liar. I said, “I do not give my consent for ANY PART of this debate to be used…” http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2012-04-03_minicast__insta-bail_aka_bye_bye_sye.mp3

False. Jim did not say that the RECORDING could not be used, but that the DEBATE could not be used for commercial purposes, and as the recording shows, the debate never happened. In Jim’s own words it was “over before it’s begun.”


False. I was not asked to present evidence.

Your own website is called Proof That God Exists, Sye. Do you not think maybe there’s a clue in the title, that you claim to have evidential proof of Yahweh’s basic existence? Oh wait, I forgot. You have to believe it first, right? Gee, how scientific.

False. I did not say that I had already presented evidence.

In your own words, when asked if you had any objectively verifiable evidence for the basic existence of Yahweh, you said “I’ve had it from the beginning”. http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2012-04-03_minicast__insta-bail_aka_bye_bye_sye.mp3

At which point Alex explained to you and the listeners that the disclaimer made for a good intro to the debate, completely cancelling out your phantasmagorically stupid excuse that the disclaimer portion of the recording did not count as being part of the actual conversation.

As for the rest of your reply, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and concede there seems to be some genuine confusion here, and you’re not just being belligerent for the sake of it. This is partly due to the fact you’ve allowed your minions to speak for you, and instead of correcting them you’ve allowed them to lie on your behalf.

I was just as keen as you were to have a heated debate, but you seem to think that in my stipulation that you weren’t going to use the same arguments you had used before, that I was telling you what you could and could not say — when that was not my intention, and I don’t think any right minded person would assume otherwise.

It’s very important, when debating with people who adopt your tactics, that we hold you down to specifics, otherwise you start a thousand tiny fires under a thousand bad ideas, leaving us to stamp out the flames using your pre-approved firefighting methods, while you run around accusing us of arson.

I’m simply not interested in playing semantic word games; seeing who can dish out the highest number of technical terms and quote-mined received opinions in one sentence. It was either going to be a genuine conversation on the facts and nothing but, or it wasn’t going to happen at all. You opted for the latter, because you have NOTHING to say beyond falsely asserting that your faith-based position is in fact objectively valid.

By way of a perfect example of this kind of word-play, you’ve demonstrated amply in your above article, that your perceived entitlement to ignore the terms of our disclaimer, rises and falls on the intended meaning of words like ‘recording’, ‘debate’, and ‘edit’, when no dispassionate observer could be in any doubt whatsoever as to what was meant by the disclaimer, why it was read out, and why you were asked to agree to it before we could go any further. And if you don’t know by now how much your reputation for lies, deceit and sheer pig headedness proceeds you, you need to hire a new PA.

That is why you left prematurely and everyone knows it. The only person who is apparently in the dark as to this fact, is you and small clique of easily confused parrots, who wouldn’t know the meaning of intellectual honesty if it kicked them in the gentleman sausage with such velocity, even Eric Hovind would have to admit Isaac Newton might have a point.

False, I get zero financial gain for having that video on YouTube.

Are you one of Eric’s employees? Do you get paid to appear in his productions? Do you file tax returns on earnings accrued from your “ministry”? Have you ever received an invitation from Google / YouTube to opt one of your videos into their ad revenue sharing scheme? Do you quote-mine people as a matter of course, in your unintelligible screeds against reality, and then delete / ignore their comments when they ask for an apology? Do you disable comments altogether on videos you know for a fact are utter bullshit?

Do you think I’m trying to change the subject by asking this? Why do you think questions pertaining to your financially gaining from content which isn’t yours to exploit are off-topic? At which point did you think we were talking to you for any reason, other than to highlight the fact you’re a money grabbing scumbag with the morals of a stoat? How do you not realise, even at this point, that you have proven this fact for us with such efficiency, we couldn’t have asked for a better outcome?



What are the odds Sye won’t include the above links to Eric Hovind’s tax returns when / if he approves this reply on his blog?

Live Skype Debate next week. Topic: Is it right to lie for Jesus?

Kingdom Treasures Castle

We need three Christians and three atheists who can use Skype. Send your Skype name to me thatjim (at) gmail.com or add me using the Skype username thatjim

This is in response to the outrageous stitch-up by @JuanitaBerguson on her phone-in “debate” this week, following a dubious introduction the week before.

Over the past week, myself and Juanita have exchanged numerous emails in which it was agreed by both of us that we were looking forward to debating the fundamentals of belief and morality and the way in which Christians so often behave contrary to their creed. When I attempted to remind her of this on-air, this week, she cut my mic, accused me of “struggling with the format” and generally acted exactly the same way she had agreed not to behave again after she originally did this the first time around.

If you are one of the many Christians who contacted me last week to say you were embarrassed at the way she behaved on your behalf, please put your name forward as being interested in taking part in next week’s open discussion. All you need is a microphone, some headphones and a reliable internet connection. The talk will be recorded and aired UNEDITED AND UNCENSORED immediately afterwards.

If that’s how she wants to play it, let the games begin.

EDIT: It has been suggested on Juanita’s forum (from which I am now banned for posting links to Paul’s comments below) that I was the one who behaved badly during tonight’s talk. Can I please just remind everyone that the whole point of having these debates was agreed between myself and Juanita in another thread of this very blog, linked below. You can read for yourself what we agreed to discuss and what we agreed the debate would be about.

I did NOT agree to be part of a Christian VERSUS atheist anything. I agreed to be part of a conversation, to which Juanita and her business partners clearly aren’t interested in having.