Because they are scumsucking profiteering liars.
Case in point: a few people had a conversation with Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate, a couple of dishonest frauds. This was not a commercial transaction.
We did not agree for God Quest, inc. to edit the conversation we had with Sye and Eric. We did not agree for God Quest, inc. to use our comments for any commercial purpose of any kind. We were not asked if God Quest, inc. could use our comments in this way. We specifically said the whole point of our having the conversation was that it would not be used in this way.
Guess what? Eric Hovind is planning to sell a DVD of the discussion to profit his lying ministry. It isn’t even a complete recording: it is an edited version, with additional commentary slapped on from their sleazy creationist perspective. It’s unethical and dishonest — two words that will always be associated with the Hovind name.
One lesson I’m learning: it’s not just that I won’t debate a Hovind, I won’t be associated with them in any way. Crossing paths with Hovind means you’ll have to spend a lot of time scraping the slime off your shoes.
Eric Hovind just called me. He wanted to inform me that my website contains misinformation.
I laughed and laughed. A man who peddles lies to children as his profession, believes the earth is less than ten thousand years old, and thinks the book of Genesis is a science textbook complained to me about misinformation on my website.
Anyway, he said no, they’re giving away parts of the debate for free. But then he let slip that the debate will also be included on a DVD they’re selling as part of a creationist curriculum (you can guess how much that won me over). Then you’re selling it, I said. No, he replied, they’re giving away parts of the debate for free. But you’re selling this curriculum, I said, and he said, yes, but they’re giving away parts of the debate for free. And it went around and around that way for a while. And I laughed.
If anyone is interested, you can go down to Pensacola, borrow Eric Hovind’s car, and sell it to a chop shop, as long as you rip out the car stereo and give it away to someone for free. Did you steal that car for money? No, you’ll be able to say, I gave it away for free.
Eric Hovind: “I wish to complain about the misinformation on your website.” Cracks me up every time.
If their religion was true, they wouldn’t have to lie all the time.
Why am I not at all surprised by this?
Oh yeah, they’re creationists!
PS. Thinking surprises whats with the new log-in stugff and it notallowing us cpaital letetrs and so forth. Freethought blogs should give us the freedom to us ethe names and capitalisations etc .. we choose. Not impressed FTB.
D’oh! They should let us edit as well as preview too. Mea culpa but I’m over-tired as. That’s supposed to read :
PS. Thinking ‘surprises’ what’s with the new log-in stuff and it not allowing us capital letters and so forth. Freethought blogs should give us the freedom to use the usernames and capitalisations, spacing, etc .. of our choosing. Not impressed FTB.
Remember, folks, the Old Testament admonition, “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness” comes with an unspoken caveat: “to thy neighbor.” Neighbor, in this case, being all who do not believe exactly the same things about exactly the same things and believe in exactly the same Magic SkyDaddy. Lying your ass off to nonbelievers, in order to bring them into the fold wherein one can call them neighbors, is okay.
But then I start to think about the righteous Christian politicians and preachers who regularly preach out and out lies (abstinence only works, evolution is in deep trouble, tax cuts help the economy) and wonder just who their in-crowd actually is. And then I drink heavily.
Sue them. Hard, long and deep.
You may notice lots of people using capital letters and spacing in their displayed names.
That’s a hint.
What I have not yet figured out is whether they are the scum that floats on the top or the sludge that sinks to the bottom.
#4 On your profile, you can edit your nickname to whatever you want, It can be different than your log in name.
But, yeah, it does seem like debating creationists is a waste of time at best, and an opportunity for deceitful editing at worst.
strange two comments not appearing, no links contained
apple, tree
Ah, display name. Cool.
Well, it let my comment through, so we know it is neither a coherence nor an intelligence filter.
For the most part I tend to think creationists are deluded and not actually intentionally lying but in Hovind’s and Circular Sye’s case, I’m pretty sure they are intentionally lying.
But hey, we are the devil in their eyes and they are lying for their super-best-imaginary-friend so they don’t care.
IANAL, but besides unethical, isn’t this also illegal? Depending on the state, there are laws against recording someone for public distribution without their permission. And if they are selling the dvd across state lines, they might be violating federal law as well.
Plus they are profiting from the distribution of the dvd with no contract.
And finally, this could open them up to libel and slander if the views are so misrepresented that it would damage the reputations of the scientists.
I say get a lawyer and sue, sue, sue. Maybe you can sue them out of business.
Multiple smackdowns of Sye Ten Bruggencate can be found at this blog.
Wasn’t there something in the babble about witnessing bears or something?
Debating creationists is like mud-wrestling with a pig: you end up covered in mud and the pig thinks it’s fun.
At least a Hovind always provides for some great Youtube clips. On the other plus side, I am not sure anyone sane actually purchases Hovind DVDs, so likely most of the world will miss out on the butchering of the ‘conversation’.
That’s hilarious that Sye has teamed up with a Hovind. And here I thought that Sye was just a particularly (in)famous Internet troll, playing hare-brained games in lieu of argument. But apparently Hovind thinks that he is a good partner in crime. The Comfort to his Cameron (or vice versa). Guess the market for moronic apologists is going the way of every other market.
Also there’s nothing to debate. Nobody would waste time debating a flat-earther because they’re ridiculously wrong and they’re insane. Creationists are equal to flat-earthers. — Human Ape
Well you see, God made everything, and they work for God.
Ergo, they own anything out of which they can cheat you.
Glen Daivdson
Hmmm, maybe a lack of ethics is inherited after all.
A dishonest Hovind?! Wait, were you there or just using that blasphemous “evidence” again?
My comment box is showing a “preview” button, unless you can no longer log in with word press and this won’t work.
Anytime you deal with creationists get everything in writing and have your lawyer on speed dial.
Well who would be one’s role model for ethics usually?
@# 7:
In a quantum universe – quite fashionable these days – they can be both.
Sue their asses. And then sue the rest of them.
And when you win, only charge for the ass part. Sue the rest of them for free.
No use. Non-human animals such as donkeys cannot legally own property, nor be named as defandant in law suits.
Here is the debate that will be critiqued. Feel free to do see how bad the atheist worldview is messed up for yourself.
http://www.drdino.com/why-the-atheist-worldview-is-fundamentally-flawed-2/
If I were you Eric I would consult a lawyer (and not the one your father used) before I advertised anymore.
From Eric’s link:
Sure I can. Presuppositionalism is self-refuting, a logical mess. I can certainly know that without God, using simple logic.
I’m the other Fundamentally Flawed presenter who’s being dicked over by Hovind and Ten Bruggencate.
You can read a lot about my interactions with Eric and Sye by clicking here and here
If you want to hear the discussion we had, just have a look around the archives of our podcast, Fundamentally Flawed. There are numerous episodes in the main archive, and a discussion between myself and Sye in the ‘Specials’ –
You’ll be able to hear the arguments Jim and I used developing, whilst the presubullshitters just talk absolute shit.
Balls, totally messed that up.
Right, podcast is here – http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=archive (check out the specials and the main show for the discussions with Ten B and Hovind)
My blog posts about Sye are here – http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/search?q=sye and Eric here – http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/search?q=Hovind
These guys are pathological liars.
Ah, I understand now, about why this Hovind teamed up with Sye. It’s because, despite his father being a Big Cheese in the creationist charlatan world, Eric is himself just a mindless internet troll, like Sye. I had forgotten that little detail. Makes more sense now.
Oh, and who would’ve thought that Eric would be a dishonest and incompotent editor on top of all of this. Who would’ve fucking thought.
I notice Eric hasn’t mentioned the subsequent discussions –
http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-10-14_dustinandsye.mp3
http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-10-29_18_episode_18__eric_hovind_and_dustin_segers_special.mp3
http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-10-24__alex_vs_sye.mp3
plus several others that didn’t involve Eric or Syecular. Glad he’s linked to the heavily edited video though, that’s the one that Sye threatened to do me for ‘libel’ when I suggested he’d made it (after he boasted about making it)
Eric I see you’re following in your father’s footsteps.
Con man and fraud, and I’m not just talking about your stupidity with scientific matters.
I’d hire a lawyer if I were you.
And just another little bit of friendly advice, stay away from Glen Stoll and David Charles Gibbs. They’re not so competent.
I notice Eric has only TODAY linked to the original discussion, whilst Jim and I published it on the day it was made, back in SEPTEMBER! http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-09-30_episode_13.mp3
Eric, how are you going to dig yourself out of the rather nasty hole you’ve created for yourself?
BRamsey @14:
It is. If you are going to film/video someone (in the U.S.) and use it to make money, or even for promotional purposes, you have to get them to sign a release form, or blur out their faces. IANAL either, but I have been on a couple independent film crews, and believe me, CYA is the order of the day. If these folks did not sign anything, and their faces are not blurred out in the videos that are being distributed, they have a really good case for a lawsuit.
Who should know more about putting out misinformation than Eric Hovind? He’s an expert on misinformation. He misinforms every day and twice on Sundays.
Lie?
I fully expect that to be the gambit he tries
I don’t Twitter, but if it hasn’t already been done, isn’t it about time someone pushed the:
#ERICHOVINDFRAUD tag?
because ERIC HOVIND IS A LIAR, A CON-MAN, AND A FRAUD.
“Eric Hovind: I wish to complain about the misinformation on your website.
Blog Owner: Sorry, we’re closin’ for lunch…!
Eric Hovind: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this website, what I visited not half an hour ago from this very blog.
Blog Owner: Oh yes, the, ah, the Pharyngula… What’s, ah… W-what’s wrong with it?
Eric Hovind: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. It’s dead, that’s what’s wrong with it.
Blog Owner: No, no, ‘e’s ah… he’s resting.
Eric Hovind: Look, matey, I know a dead paradigm when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.
Blog Owner: No no, h-he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’!
Eric Hovind: Restin’?
Blog Owner: Y-yeah, restin.’ Remarkable words, the Pharyngula, isn’t it, eh? Beautiful plumage!
Eric Hovind: The plumage don’t enter into it. It’s stone dead!
Blog Owner: Nononono, no, no! ‘E’s resting!
Eric Hovind: All right then, if he’s resting, I’ll wake him up!”
.
.
.
And Now for Something Completely Different…A Man With Three Buttocks!
Or you could just call him a Christian Apologist. Fewer words, just as disgusting.
It happened to me too – I ‘debated’ Sye Tenbruggencate way back in July and now the DVD is up for sale, without my consent or permission, on the CSE website.
http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/1203/category_id/85
Hovind needs to be prevented from pulling this kind of crap
From rational jen’s link:
WATCH as Sye Ten Bruggencate destroys his enemies with question begging!
HEAR the wailing of frustrated logic as Sye Ten Bruggencate’s enemies go down before him!
SMELL the powerful musk of irrationality as Sye Ten Bruggencate uses the word of God to prove God exists!
FEEL the stabbing pain go deep into your brain as Sye Ten Bruggencate eschews reason, nature, and experience in favor of presuppositionalism!
Well, you still have that iPod. Did Eric load it with Jesus songs and preachings?
Hovind needs to be prevented from pulling this kind of crap
then file a civil suit.
these people are all about money; hit them where it hurts.
jim, I’m not even sure where in the hell you were going with that…
but the Parrot sketch simply fails here.
If anything, it’s Hovind that’s selling dead parrots.
as for a lawyer that would take the case…
I seem to recall a lawyer that used to hang around Panda’s Thumb quite a lot that would be more than happy to do some pro bono work on this.
He’s quite well known, but for the life of me, I can’t recall his name now.
:(
I bet you could write NCSE for a good recommendation too.
Not a big surprise. I suspect that these people realize that they don’t actually have any content of their own, so they resort to stealing it from others.
I’ll second the “get a lawyer” bit. Sadly, this offense will not be enough to make Eric join his father, but at least it’ll hit him in the one place he truly cares about; his wallet.
If I was a christian, I’d call Eric a servant of Satan. His blatant disregard for both the truth and common decency is downright sickening.
It’s odd, I’m actually offended on behalf of christianity that these people call themselves christians. It’s a very strange feeling.
We need to find a lawyer willing to help 2 poor brits
We need to find a lawyer willing to help 2 poor brits
contact NCSE and the similar organization in the UK.
not kidding.
they will very likely have some ideas for you on the lawyer front.
…and the BCSE (completely avoiding the shitstorms that have revolved around them here), would most likely jump at the chance to be involved, in fact.
at least, they would get you started.
…oh, and just… well, just keep Roger Stanyard at arm’s length when you deal with him at BCSE.
He can be a good resource, and he knows his stuff, but he can also be a complete asshole.
I LOL’d at ‘Virtually circular’ This was the worst example of christians arguing that I’ve ever heard. Why Alex and Jim didn’t leave early I’ll never know.
Pardon me, that was ‘virtuously’ but still, it was the biggest gut laugh I’ve had in a long time
“Why Alex and Jim didn’t leave early I’ll never know.”
We wanted to try to understand their ‘argument’, but that whole first debate was basically the two of us repeatedly going ‘eh??’
Subsequent debates ended up with the presubullshitters in real trouble.
Con-man, fraud and big giant joke.
A chip off the old block he is.
A chip off the old block he is.
In an odd way, it’s proof that creationists actually do at least HAVE the ability to learn.
He sure learned well from his daddy’s con game.
Just imagine what kinds of deeds that erichovind would be capable of if he were not constrained by the morality on loan from his deity.
It’s no wonder Sye Ten B is dishonest, he was addled by a rock blow to the head…
he was addled by a rock blow to the head…
I sense a pun in there, and I think I would laugh if I actually knew who Sye Ten B was aside from today’s post.
Ichthyic, you must have missed it when erichovind, Sye Ten and other dropped in for an hour and half of nattering godbottery last month. It was just as inane as you would expect it to be.
Wow, projection.
You claim that a reason not to debate Creationists is “Because they are scumsucking profiteering liars.” However, I notice that you have 6 advertisements on your page and even an advertisement for people to advertisement on your page. If you think profiteering is wrong than why do you do it.
No pun, just a reference to an exchange on Stephen Law’s blog between Law and Sye.
I nominate andrewrappaport for the Clueless Twit of the Hour award.
Seconded myceck waters.
andrewrappaport you know nothing about how the advertising system works. Basically we talk a lot about religion here, admittedly in a negative way, and the pattern matching stuff tends to match up religious ads to it because it’s not that bright.
If you see a particularly offensive one apparently you can email PZ Myers with the URL and they can add it specifically to the ‘no’ list. But it can be hard to keep up. On the plus side, think of it this way, the godbots are subsidising Pharyngula. That idea makes me smile a little.
Oh, I see so when PZ advertises it is ok? but when a Christian does it then it is profiteering.
I see you guys do not understand basic logic. I NEVER stated that I had a problem with advertising, PZ DID. I just pointed out the hypocrisy.
The point PZ made that that you should not debate Christians because they may make money off it like he does on this blog.
Oh, I see so when PZ advertises it is ok? but when a Christian does it then it is profiteering.
*looks for what brought on THAT strawman.*
mmmm…. no… not seeing it.
you just pulled that right out of your ass.
I see you guys do not understand basic logic.
when you post some, we’ll see if it’s actually understandable.
still waiting…
It was just as inane as you would expect it to be.
then likely I did see it, and have just mashed it in to all the related inanity spewed by these clowns over the years.
argueraport chortled,
The point was that these particular Christians are profiting from others without their consent.
You know, taking ownership of something that they have no legal right to own or distribute.
It’s cute how you have to over-simplify an argument in order to come up with equivalence and hence, hypocrisy.
For your next trick, might I suggest arguing that walnuts are Hovinds because they are both nuts?
[meta]
andrewrappaport:
Where?
expect that the lie is the guy who after the debate changes his mind on his consent no on the Christian that got the consent in the first place.
expect that the lie is the guy…
with the pie, in his eye.
it makes me cry.
Profit is not evil or bd, the problem some of us have is the method gaining profit. Lying, cheating, and misrepresentation is not ethical. The way ads re placed on the site is explained quite clearly. Its the thing if go complain about a newspaper profiteering from all the flyers every week.
oh come on, the man puts up a ridiculously inane strawman, and people actually want to try and explain things to him?
really?
he’s a clown.
laugh and move on.
He may be a clown, but he’s crying inside. CRYING.
andrew:
PZ:
Objecting to selling DVDs of footage without consent of filmed parties is not objecting to advertisements in general. READ, goddammit!
Try again when PZ uses the words of a christian with out compensation and sells it.
Your logic is not like our Earth logic.
That is not the point. The point is that Eric Hovind will take a debate, pull things out of context and sell it. It is not that Eric Hovind is making money. It is because Rric Hovind is selling lies.
But I think that you find it much easier to complain about a non existent hypocrisy instead of defending Eric Hovind’s actions.
Andrew apparently is unable to understand the concept of a Christian being dishonest.
Apparently he doesn’t know many Christians.
Eric is not selling the DVD. you need to get your facts right. they are having the debate for free and the are selling they commentary on the debate which will include FREE debate.
I notice how so many of you seem to want to ignore the point made by PZ. Notice the argument above for PZ’s defense was that I had to understand how advertizing works. well you made that claim then YOU should understand it. so what is your issue with Eric making money JUST LIKE PZ is doing.
[meta]
myeck @85, you’re too generous.
I’m betting he is one.
Ichthyic, yesterday and today, you spent hours explaining apologies to elizabethliddle. You do not get to say this because you do not follow it.
So, the debate is free but one must pay for the dishonesty.
Still not the same as having ads, douchenozzle.
andrewrappaport:
So you dispute that “the debate will also be included on a DVD they’re selling as part of a creationist curriculum”?
<Spoing!>
The dishonesty and the false pretences, of course.
(As has been more than amply explained, most recently @84)
Look Sye has a recording of them giving consent so the only one being dishonest is those claiming that they never gave consent.
Give us a link to this video so we can see for ourselves. Otherwise you are lying, as far as I’m concerned.
Oh, wait now you will claim that the recording was edited, right? If you were honest you will check all the facts not just the ones you want to believe.
In order to defend the act of lying, one must resort to more lying.
If the video has NOT been edited it will probably be clear that it has not been edited. Are you really this stupid?
Link or you’re a liar.
Produce it.
Really if that were the case Eric would have said they had consent to have their appearance commercialized rather than insisting it wasn’t because…
If only Eric Hovind would do this but his livelihood is based on lying.
BTW ‘Hey wanna do this interview thing” is not the same as “Hey sign off on this so i can make money from it”
That’s why you need the paper work
Ichthyic, yesterday and today, you spent hours explaining apologies to elizabethliddle. You do not get to say this because you do not follow it.
well you know what I have to say to that?
*raspberry*
besides, it wasn’t elizabeth i even focused on there to my recolletion
I made FUN OF marianabriansonwhatever, and the only person I debated apologies with was Alathea, and she had some decent points, and was not a nutbagger, unlike our current candidate.
Oooh, good point, Ing:, I totally missed that.
Your claim about consent is already unmasked as a base canard, andrew. Give up now.
andrewrappaport:
Easy to remove stuff; not so easy to add it.
(There was good advice back when, to the effect that (amongst other precautions) one should have a clock showing in the shot when dealing with creationists)
Could someone translate #78, please.
Eric is not selling the DVD. you need to get your facts right. they are having the debate for free and the are selling they commentary on the debate which will include FREE debate.
he’s not selling the DVD, but he’s selling the commentary, but it’s free.
uh huh.
SOMEONE needs to get their facts straight.
[meta + OT]
Ichthyic, Alethea (was Cath the Canberra Cook).
Ichthyic, I had to tease you.
So:
*raspberry*
back at ya.
No smileys because I hate emoticons.
Ironic, isn’t it? The people who are so full of righteousness and claim to be fighting for the Truth are utterly incapable of acting in an ethical or honest manner.
Wow, you’re contemptible. Editing someones words so that their meaning is changed to support their opponents false position is what is known as lying.
The fact that Hovind lies for profit is beyond contempt.
No smileys because I hate emoticons.
even the raised eyebrow?
O.o
Goddamnit was that ever a waste of time.
@Ichthyic
That’s not the raised eye brow. This is the raised eye brow ^_-
But… bu… but… it is the same as having ads.
Is this DEEP RIFTS over emoticons?
Giving consent to be taped does not give eric the liar hovind permission to use the taped material for anything.
That requires a legal document known as a release form.
[meta]
chigau @102, sure, I can translate grunt-speak:
The intended claim is that ‘it was not the Christian who lied, because they got consent, but rather the other guy, who changed his mind after the debate’.
(I know, I know — it was a conversation/interview, not a ‘debate’, and the ‘other guy’ was actually multiple people. Pesky things, facts)
Sure it is! And monkeys fly out of my butt when I cough.
Andrew,
He’s giving away the DVD for free, with footage of people who didn’t consent to be filmed for something that would be sold for profit. But they’re giving it away “for free” as part of a package deal that you have to pay for. That’s them trying to weasel out of a deal, and it’s transparent.
What is also transparent: That your original complaint was dead fucking wrong.
You called PZ a hypocrite for using ads when PZ wasn’t fucking worried about advertisement, but about the fact that the people filmed had explicitly said they didn’t want the debate footage to be used for profit.
Present the evidence that the two people in question did consent to the video being used for profit and you will have proven that point. But whether or not you are right on that issue, you are still wrong about your initial complaint. Dare to admit that? Or you are going to be as dishonest as we could expect from someone who came in here with such bluster and illiteracy?
I am almost tempted to ask for a video of this. But I am squicked out too much.
John Morales
That’s kinda what I thought.
Is this DEEP RIFTS over emoticons?
MUHAHAHAHA.
>:-)
monkeys fly out of my butt when I cough
really?
it only happens for me when I use Hemp Oil.
This is the raised eye brow ^_-
no, no, that’s a sophisticated anime style wink.
I haz reference!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon#Japanese_style
ha-ha! I kung-fu your emoticon knowledge!
[OT + gross]
Ichthyic, you call them monkeys?
(I call them turds — except when I’m diarrhoetic, when I call it liquishit)
/(-_-)\
lalala
Ichthyic, you call them monkeys?
OT:
*refer back to Hemp Oil thread, where I used the claim there*
It says something when riffs on flying monkeys and scat is a step up from what andrewrappaport was arguing.
lalala
\(^_^)/
Harumble!
What is Pi to the 53rd decimal place. yes or no.
“DEEP RIFTS”: Is that like regular <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifts_(role-playing_game)" RIFTS mixed with a little bit of Hollow World ?
It says something when riffs on flying monkeys and scat is a step up from what andrewrappaport was arguing.
d(^_^)d
*thumbs up*
Well fuck me. I can always be trusted to bork at least one link if I haven’t made some other kind of spelling/grammatical error. Anyway, who’s up for taking PZ’s suggestion and borrowing Hovind’s car? Maybe we can give it to a car dealer for free as a package deal if they buy a $10,000 fruit basket. That’s totally a legit way to do business, right?
[OT]
anteprepro, here’s the lazy way not to bork links:
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_Rifts.
—
(Trying not to cough)
Flying butt monkeys are not fecal, I always picture small versions of the monkeys in Wizard of Oz.
It’s an enjoyable way to say that someone is deluded.
Anyway, who’s up for taking PZ’s suggestion and borrowing Hovind’s car?
ROADTRIP!
….Feces Monkeys?
*ducks*
Are we back to ducks?
Didn’t we establish that it was Pooh and Tigger?
but…
Tiggers are wonderful things.
Well, there is crocoduck on the banner. ;)
If Syecular is claiming that he has audio of Jim and I giving consent, then he is lying.
Link to an mp3 Andrew, or STFU
@6. PZ Myers : 30 November 2011 at 9:46 am
Thanks PZ.
Yeah, got it now. I’d missed that, had trouble signing in / up last night and was commenting whilst pretty durn overtired. Mea culpa.
@ 112. janine : 30 November 2011 at 11:41 pm
Or only a shallow one maybe? ;-)
FWIW, I happen to really like emoticons & think they serev a pretty good purpose in clarifying intention / aiding communication here and elsewhere online but I seem to be in the minority?
Just be sure to have the monkeys sign a release form first.
chigau (本当),
It may have been Pooh – or it may not. It certainly wasn’t me; I wasn’t there. I think it was a duck in disguise.
Ichthyic ,
Thank you! =^_^= (happy Tigger emoticon)
/derail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope Hovind gets sued and gets a big hit to the pocket. If people keep on just shrugging and letting it be, he and his like will keep right on being sleazebags. It seems to me that they know as well as we do that there is no BGITS waiting to throw them into eternal torment for their sins; as long as they can escape Earthly punishment (often by convincing others that there’s a BGITS, and it approves) they don’t care how they make a profit.
Let’s try a counter-example:
An evolutionary scientist claims to have absolute, rock-solid evidence that evolution is true, creationism is wrong and god doesn’t exist.
When asked to produce the evidence, he says, “You wouldn’t believe it anyway, so I’m not going to show it. But I totally have it. And it’s reaaaaally good.”
Would you find this convincing?
If yes, then you’re a gullible moron. If no, then you’re a hypocritical moron.
I’m Jim, the guy who asked PZ to look into this yesterday and the podcaster in question, who Eric Hovind lied to about not selling this DVD.
When you first meet him, Eric is a very polite and apparantly well meaning chap. At the end of our conversation both myself and Alex Botten agreed that, despite loathing what he does for a living, we liked Eric’s attempt at even handedness in the debate. The real sparks were flying from Sye TenB, so we had our attention distracted somewhat from the fact that it was actually Eric who was pulling the strings.
This didn’t become obvious to us, until the second podcast we recorded with him and Dustin Segers, who at times appeared quite embarrassed at the failure of Hovind to answer very basic questions. It’s little wonder that this conversation is not the feature of one of Hovind’s DVD’s, since it revealed the true extent of his loathing for scientific facts.
Anyone who listens to the first debate will see that on several occasions Eric tried to tie up the conversation by falsely representing what we had been saying — or attempting to say, at least, amidst Sye’s repeated interruptions and self-important meanderings. Whereas anyone who listens to the second podcast, will see that myself and Alex went away and did a great deal of research which rebuffed each of Sye’s claims — even to the point where Dustin appeared to distance himself from Sye altogether.
It was only the fact that we agreed beforehand, that no-one would have the power of veto to mute anyone’s microphone, or edit what anyone said after the fact, which enabled us to pull Eric up on this repeated tactic of incorrectly summarising our position. I can only presume — and at this stage, since Eric hasn’t made available a review copy of the DVD, it is an assumption — that the only parts of the conversation which will make the edit are the parts where he’s so busy telling us what we’re saying, he isn’t actually listening to what we did say.
Since this first hit PZ’s front page yesterday, I’ve also had word that Sye is claiming to have an audio recording of myself and Alex giving permission for the sale of this DVD to go ahead. No such recording exists. He is lying. Again. And while it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who is all-too-familiar with Sye, I do hope that anyone who spots him in the wild, claiming to have our permission, will immediately correct him on this.
Our offer still stands to sell this DVD for Eric, on our respective blogs, if he choses to finally do the right thing and give all the proceeds of its sale to UNICEF. All he has to do to prove this is what he has done, is publish the sales receipts.
@ madbull
Do you mean they aren’t real?
Damn, I am going to have to rewrite my letter to Satan* this year.
*Like the other guy in red but hornier.
really?
All Sye has to do is produce it now.
Betting that doesn’t happen, but one can hope…
for the yuks
And this is fucking plain stupidity on display.
I recorded the Foo Fighter’s concert on my hi def video camera and I’m giving their concert away FREE but I’m charging you for the commentary I made on their set list.
An off-air audio recording of Eric Hovind and Sye TenB agreeing not to edit the audio which they then proceeded to edit:
https://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/an-off-air-audio-recording-of-eric-hovind-and-sye-tenb-agreeing-not-to-edit-the-audio-of-a-conversation-they-then-edited/
Here ya go folks: P.Z.’s Lyers and Setting the Record Straight.
Enjoy!
Note: Included in that blog post is the FULL agreement not just the edited portion that Jim provided.
Interestingly I could not post that under my SyeTenB account. Have I been banned P.Z. without inclusion on your dungeon list?
Sorry Syecular, I couldn’t be arsed reading your, no doubt, brilliant piece of work. Still, I’m sure you’ll win a lot of converts with your latest loopy spew of nonsense, whatever it says!
Of course not, you prefer living with your head in the sand over having your position thoroughly exposed for its deceptiveness.
Now it’s my turn to ‘laugh and laugh’! Sye, you’re an absolute moron.
Still not seeing the release agreement.
And you missed the point. The point was that soliphcism is possible but not useful and you took that to mean that without god we don’t know anything. You’re dishonest.
To spell it out for you, Binkyboy. Saying that it’s possible WE don’t know anything, includes YOU as well. That means that if you slide everything back into soliphcism you’re not better off than you were before because now you’ve denied all evidence. Empiricism still looks at what seems verifiable and can say “it seems to be this way”, you still cannot say that. You’re starting a race 30 yards behind someone else but somehow think you can win if you move both starting points back another 50.
Seriously guys, you need to sue these fuckers
Sye Ten B, still libing with being addled by a rock blow to the head. It’s sad, really.
I can’t help but notice that the sound clips linked in that post are all short cut-outs. Please provide the entire, unedited audio so that we can judge whether the clips are correctly presented and not taken out of context.
For example, regarding the “we can’t know anything” bit, it’s quite clear that the problem arises mainly because of your simple-minded thinking. The fact that it’s possible we might be wrong doesn’t mean that we can’t know anything. It simply means that absolute, metaphysical certainty is, in most cases, impossible. Anyone with any shred of honesty must admit this. That’s not the same as saying we can’t know.
Wrong. A moment’s thought on the “brain-in-a-vat” thought experiment should make that quite clear. Just because you could invent some bizarre scenario where you might be wrong, doesn’t invalidate the idea of knowledge in general.
IANAL, but I think that you would need a positive permission in order to use it commercially, not simply the absence of a refusal. The posted sound clip pointedly did not contain any such permission.
Can anyone verify or correct my perception of the law on this point?
So, to be clear, you will be offering the entire, unedited exchange for free by itself and not only as a part of a commercial product?
I.e. I will be able to get the complete recording without having to buy any other product from you?
That should say “living”.
Eric clearly has his father’s grasp on the law.
“Well I’m giving that away for free, Yeronor”
Judge: “…and how does one get the free product?”
“They buy my DVD”
Judge “…So they pay for it”
“No they pay for the packaging it comes in, the commentary track on it and the interactive menu. The content itself is free”
Judge “So it’s free they just have to give you money”
“Yes, Yeronor”
Judge “Which you’re not sharing with the other people who made it?”
“Correct, Yeronor”
Look, we all know the real reason Jim and Alex have their shorts in a knot. Alex admitted that they were “flailing hopelessly,” and Jim admitted to making “ridiculous mistakes” in the exchange.
You really should listen to them to see the real reason they don’t want them distributed.
The Hovind legal method! Come up with your own interpretation of the law and insist it’s legal as long as you’re consistent!
I believe the legal definition of that is “Not My Problem”
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/audio/intro.mp3
@Janine
Linky no go
What you folks fail to see is that the exchanges are ALREADY available in their entirety FOR FREE. No one needs to purchase the planned commentary to get the debates FOR FREE. Including the debates FOR FREE with the planned commentary is only a matter of convenience.
This is the forth time I tried to post the link to the audio clip. Cut and paste it in.
I do think the permission is left vague on purpose.
For people who ‘don’t want them distributed’ we sure have linked to the various recordings a whole lot! In fact here’s a link to the whole show AGAIN – http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-09-30_episode_13.mp3 – I say ‘again’ because I’ve already posted a link to it in the comments here.
I’m not remotely embarrassed by that first interaction, yes, we flailed around a bit, but we also were utterly unconvinced by your ‘argument’. If people then go and listen to the subsequent shows with Sye, they’ll hear us reaching the point where Sye showed a woeful lack of Biblical knowledge and admitting that he trusted his ‘revelation’ without checking it was genuine, and Eric falling apart like a cheap suit when asked for positive evidence for Creationism.
I feel no shame whatsoever in having responded to my initial live interaction with a lengthy ‘ehhhhh????’, as that is the only real response his TAG nonsense deserves.
“What you folks fail to see is that the exchanges are ALREADY available in their entirety FOR FREE. No one needs to purchase the planned commentary to get the debates FOR FREE. Including the debates FOR FREE with the planned commentary is only a matter of convenience.”
In that case don’t put them on the disk, just include a link to the website.
I have not given you permission to use that discussion on a commercially available DVD. Feel free to record a discussion about it, but the second you use my voice on a commercially available product, be prepared to lawyer up.
IT DOESN’T MATTER. YOU STILL CAN’T USE THE FOOTAGE FOR A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT
If I put a youtube clip of myself dancing in undies in Nike shoes, Nike does not have the legal right to take it, add a audiotract from Blue Oyster Cult and make it a commercial.
So, again, if I took these recordings, burned them to CDs, sold them and kept the money for myself, you wouldn’t have a problem with that?
Not if you were in ’em.
My mistake. I tried to appeal to your common sense and forgot that you don’t have any.
You need the permission of ALL the people in a recording to use it commercially. The fact that you’re one of the people is irrelevant. You can only give permission for yourself, not for others.
Jim from the fundamentally flawed podcast in question here.
Myself and Alex have just recorded a short mini-cast to gather our thoughts. While we were on, Eric Hovind popped up on Skype, so we added him in.
He wouldn’t say if he still plans to go ahead with selling a DVD which includes the conversation as part of a “free extra” but he indicated earlier, on twitter, that he does.
Sye’s latest blog entry directly contradicts things which he himself wrote in private emails to me not two days ago.
Earlier today I posted an audio extract, recorded before the main podcast took place, in which Eric agreed there would be no editing of the conversation. Judging from the conversation we just had on Skype, he took this to mean so long as the entire conversation was provided in an unedited form, he was free to do with it whatever he liked. He was then told, in no uncertain terms, that he does not have our permission to do any such thing and was disconnected. You can hear a recording of the full conversation here: fundamenatlly-flawed.com/pods as soon as Alex has had a chance to MP3ize it and upload it to the thingy whatsit-a-ma-jig.
I understand Eric has also raised the ire of Paul Baird for releasing a DVD of a conversation he had with Sye. I do not know if Paul’s situation is similar to ours, but I suspect it is. If anyone can shed more light on that I’d appreciate it. We might be able to do something together to stop Eric from making money on things which he doesn’t have the permission of those involved to do.
Can I thank everyone very much, especially PZ, for staying on top of this and shining a light on the sorts of things these liars get up to. Can I also ask if anyone sees anything out there, over the coming weeks and months, which is available for sale with my name or Alex’s name on it, from the Hovind camp, to please get in touch with me immediately via my howgoodisthat.wordpress.com blog
Cheers!
Eric himself speaking not half an hour ago to Jim Gardner and Alex Botten:
http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-12-01_00_minicast__money_for_nothing.mp3
Sye,
Given that you assert:
* laws of logic exist; that these laws are absolute, invariant and universal; and
* knowledge with absolute certainty is possible…
… I have to wonder why you haven’t been able to answer, honestly and transparently, the questions I asked you 3 years ago:
1. Where is the formal explication of these laws of logic—how do you have access to them in their universal, absolute and invariant form?
2. Where is your formal theory of truth, showing how your system allows one to know something with certainty?
They’re not really difficult questions, Sye. In fact, if you do have access to universal, invariant, absolute laws of logic and you have a formal theory of truth that allows one to achieve certainty every time, then this IS the knockout argument in favor of Christianity. So why wouldn’t you pony up?
I mean, if you don’t actually have access to universal, absolute, invariant laws of logic, and you don’t in fact have a formal theory of truth that allows one to reason with certainty, then your precious presuppositionalism is nothing more than a vicious circularity.
What’s it going to be?
Sye’s latest blog entry directly contradicts things which he himself wrote in private emails to me not two days ago.
con men lie.
news at 11.
Since you have no problem sharing my private e-mails to you on your blog, fill yer boots man, prove your point.
say, why don’t YOU post your private emails here.
that should be good for a chuckle or two.
What good would proving one’s point do to someone who was addled by a rock to the head?
ok you guys wanted the link, here you go: http://offenseofthefaith.com/blog/p-z-%E2%80%99s-lyers-and-setting-the-record-straight/
I realize from reading the comments that many here lack the ability for critical thinking and do not seem to understand logical arguments.
i have to laugh how many of you go on the attack for pointing out a simple FACT. PZ stated that the REASON to not debate Christians is that they may PROFIT from it. However, PZ is PROFITING from it as well.
attacking Christians as dishonest or stating that Eric did something wrong is nothing more that avoid the point.
It is PZ that made that the claim that Atheists should not debate Christians because they may profit from it, all the while PZ is profiting from this blog and in a much great amount of profit then Eric would make.
I personally think the reason Atheists do not want to debate educated Christians is because they do not have answers to tough questions and this post is an example. I find that in any debate I have have with Atheists they do not answer the questions. All you have is logical fallacies, attempts of humor by ridicule and avoiding to answer the questions. and if you need an example just read the posts here. I pointed out that PZ is doing the very thing that he says is wrong and what is the response. attacks on Christians, attacks on Eric, changing topics but all along avoiding to honestly deal with the point. Your desire to censor and avoid critical thinking is enough evidence that you cannot be trusted to have the truth because you only study what you already believe and ignore all else. That is why the name of this blog is so laughable because it is anything but “free thought”.
You’re a barefaced liar – which is no surprise at all from a Hovind groupie. The objection is plainly stated: that (a) Hovind did not have the permission of PZ and others to profit from a DVD on which they appear, and (b) the DVD contains dishonest editing and commentary.
I don’t know how much money PZ pulls in from this blog (and I suspect, neither do you), but I’d be very surprised if it was enough to make it worth all the time he spends on it.
Besides, the issue isn’t that you profit. It’s that you profit dishonestly and possibly illegally.
Asking you to provide the material freely and unedited so anyone can see and evaluate it for themselves is censorship?
Is it any wonder people ridicule you?
But alright, if you have these wonderful, unanswerable questions, why not post them here? I’m sure the pharyngulites would be happy for a new chew toy.
No, it’s because you’d unlawfully profit from it because you don’t respect intellectual property rights.
Also you know. You’re two faced, lying, dishonest, greedy and self centered. Your father ran his church like a private piggy bank and played your faithful like a harp from hell and you seem to be following in his foot steps. Your organization is one marred by scandals and fraud; I would not do business with someone with your rep.
andrewrappaport:
Wow! Did you read the same thing I read?
PZ Myers:
While the word “profit” does appear in one form, yours is a misrepresentation of what he said.
But strangely, it perfectly demonstrates what he said: creationists and some other theists have to warp reality to make it fit their beliefs. Some do so sincerely and without malice (like Francis Collins). Others do so for reasons specifically disallowed by their own sacred texts, such as pride or avarice (such as Kent and Eric Hovind, Ted Haggard, Jeffrey Lundgren, Ken Ham, etc, etc, and of course, etc).
The fact you so readily distort what PZ actually said speaks poorly to your character as both a Christian, and as a member of society. You bear false witness, and do so for your own gain (either personal satisfaction [pride] or monetary [avarice]), all of which goes against the doctrine you claim to espouse. The fact you do this gleefully indicates you don’t care for the faith you publicly claim.
I can only conclude you are instead an Elmer Gantry, wearing your faith as protective coloring as you prey on others. This makes you both a hypocrite, and a con man.
I wish I could feel sorrow for you, but I can’t. The best I can muster is a vague contempt.
Earlier Jim said:
I responded:
Judging by Jim’s silence, I imagine that he now realizes that he’s been caught in another one of his “ridiculous mistakes.”
Allow me to set the record straight once again. It would appear that contradiction that Jim is alleging is his claim that I told him in private e-mails that there already was a DVD.
As you can see, I have asked Jim to produce that evidence, and have been met with the usually silence when he is caught out. Well folks, allow me to present you evidence from my e-mails to Jim which clearly shows that I asked him for input to the DVD, so it was OBVIOUSLY NOT yet made.
I may have to blog about some more of their errors so folks can get a clearer picture of what is going on.
Andrew, andrew, andrew…don’t you have something better to do than make a fool of yourself?
The actual complaint in PZ’s post is that they are profiting DISHONESTLY. By using footage that they didn’t have permission to use for commercial purposes. The profit is only relevant because it is through dishonest means. Which is obvious to anyone who isn’t fucking illiterate (speaking of which, Sye already came in here and linked to the same post you did, you fucking moron). You are still fucking ridiculously wrong here, and the fact that you insist on continuing your original argument long after we pointed out that it was dead-in-the-water is profoundly sad.
The fucking irony is rich with this one. Christians and their shiny mirrors.
Wait…so you are considering yourself among the “educated Christians” giving us “tough questions” we can’t answer? Let me laugh some more!
Hi, it’s Jim from the Fundamentally Flawed podcast again here. Can I just say another big thanks to everyone who has shown support for us in this.
We’ve started a mini-blog to compile articles on religious fundamentalists and anti-science. If you’d like to help us write it, please have a look at this website stating who you are and who or what you’d like to write about.
godsthatdontexist.wordpress.com
We hope it will grow into a useful resource to help anyone doing research on these characters, to find relevant information about their backgrounds, before sending them any money.
Thanks again.
Why, hi there Jim! Care to erm, back up your claim yet?
In case you forgot, it’s this one:
Ya, the same one that I refuted just then.
You didn’t refute it, you only think you did because you were addled by a rock to the head.
A lot of their statements make more sense if you realize they think a lot of words – “refute” for example – are synonyms for “lie”.
Hey, you don’t have to take my word for it, but Jim made an allegation and I provided sufficient evidence (I have more) that his allegation was false. Jim has been to this thread AFTER my presentation of evidence, and has decided not to support his claim (for obvious reasons). If you guys want to align yourselves with his argument, have at it, but the evidence indicates that he was wrong.
And yet you’ve failed to provide any evidence for the one thing that really matters: A permission for you to use the recordings in a commercial product.
I understand that you might wish to draw attention away from it, but since this is:
1) the point that formed the subject of the opening post
2) a point that many of us have asked about repeatedly in this thread
3) a point that a supporter of yours claim that you have evidence of
I think it might be relevant to address. So, do you have such a permission or not? Once and for all, let’s get that point settled. It’s a simply yes or no.
So how about trotting out some of these “tough” questions? Which one are you going to start with? “Nothing comes from nothing?” Or fine tuning? How about the ontological “proof of gawd”? All of the “tough” questions you goddists think we can’t answer are the same ones you smug assholes trot out time and time again. And you know this as well as we do.
@Tis
Morality
Empty Tomb
They should know it, but they “refute” (i.e. lie) about it, especially to themselves.
‘Tis:
It seems this crowd prefers the transcendental proof, which Bill O’Reilly so succinctly and pithily refuted: “Tide comes in. Tide goes out.”