I’ve tried to respond to some of the more extreme falsehoods on Sye’s blog (not even going to link to it, just google ‘offense of the faith’) but it appears that he is moderating. Here’s what I’ve posted -

Really, the whole thing with Sye and this video is beyond childish, why our presup pal can’t just man up and admit that he made a mistake when he went back on the agreement he clearly made is beyond me. Perhaps he wants to push things to the point of an actual legal tussle, to try and force Jim and I into having to pay out large amounts of money just to defend our copyright against dishonest religionists? I for one have no interest in any such challenge, and if Youtube decide to put the dishonestly edited and commercialised video back on Sye’s channel then I will happily let it sit there are a clear monument to the endlessly duplicitous nature of the man. I honestly don’t expect it to get to that though, as I don’t expect Youtube to reinstate a video that clearly infringes copyright (and that has already been pulled down once).

“UPDATE: Apparently Skype has fair use policies. So Jim and Alex were wrong, and in violation, to insist they have rights to Sye’s voice as they did. Actually, I believe Jim and Alex was violating Skype policy and should, and could, be banned from Skype. If I was an Atheist I might pursue that type of avenue.”

From here.

Oh dear, poor befuddled Dan STILL doesn’t understand! We at no point said that we had exclusive rights to Sye’s voice! We merely presented clear terms for subsequent use of the recording – namely that it should not be edited, or used for commercial purposes on any Christian channels. If Sye had uploaded the entire unedited show, correctly attributed and without any advertising for his website or Crown Rights Media embedded into the video then we would have had no problem at all. Hell, we’ve not complained about his uploading of complete discussions to his own site, have we?

What we have a problem with is Sye agreeing not to edit the show or use it commercially, and then going and doing exactly the opposite. If this had been the other way round, Dan would be first in line suggesting that his fellow god-botherers lawyer up, but when the shoe is on a fundie foot, he throws common decency to the wind and cheers on his ‘brothers in Christ’ regardless of how wrong they are.

Over on his risible blog, Dan has posed the following request -

“let’s hear that case against Sye.”

OK, here you go -

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.

Dan Marvin, commenting over at Jim’s blog -

“So why would I, or anyone, want to associate or colaberate [sic] in any way with that complete unrighteousness that goes against my entire belief system?”

I dunno, Dan, why would you? Why would you not only not seek to avoid such situations, but actively encourage them by naming your blog ‘Debunking Atheists’ and regularly attacking those who don’t accept your insane delusions?

It’s a mystery.

To be honest, I’m amazed that Dan isn’t picking Canadian shit out of his teeth right now after today sticking his nose so far up Sye Ten Bruggencate’s arse he could have smelled the grizzled Canuck’s lunch. In a frankly bizarre self righteous huff piece Dan has ridden to the defence of the indefensible actions of his hero and cult leader and stuck the boot into my Fundamentally Flawed colleague Jim Gardner and I.

Here’s Dan’s take on the latest podcast controversy

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, 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 Jim and Alex, 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.

Dan seems a little confused here, he seems to think that I put the podcast up on Youtube BEFORE Sye and Crown Rights posted their bastardised version and not as a direct result of their behaviour, he doesn’t seem to understand that Sye was a fully aware that he was appearing on a podcast, and that he had also explicitly acknowledged that he was not to use the audio in any commercial setting….look, I’ve already written about this over on Dan’s blog (in the comments to the above linked article), this is what I said -

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?

Dan has responded with the following -

Just because you label a skype conversation a “podcast” does not give you the right to use his voice as you please and he cannot. It is hypocrisy all over again. It reveals a great deal about you though.

My thoughts on this? Read on!

Dan, if Sye didn’t like the agreement he could have simply said ‘I’m sorry, I won’t be involved in a debate with such restrictions attached’. Instead he said ‘I understand’ when asked if he understood the stipulations, stipulations which we had to put in place after his previously announced intention to profit from an earlier conversation with Jim and I when we had not agreed to this. Once he said this, he seemed more than happy to continue with the recording.

No matter how hard you try to spin this, your bumchum Sye looks like a lowlife, no honour, scumbag, and you look the same by defending his actions.

“Just because you label a skype conversation a “podcast…”" – oh? And what makes it a ‘podcast’ then? Having available via the ‘Podcasts’ section of iTunes perhaps? Would that do it? Idiot.

It’s like a fucking soap opera.

ADDENDUM:

More evidence that Dan hasn’t realised WHY we’re not happy with Sye using what’s not his to use is clear in the following from his blog -

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.

Not only does Dan display a total lack of awareness of how copyright, and ‘fair use’ in particular, works but he’s effectively signing the death warrant on his own blog if serious. Any claim like that would simply drive people away from dealing with Dan, and he’d rapidly find himself blocked on other blogs (like this one). I don’t think he’s serious, because I think he knows deep down how utterly ridiculous he’s being.

Behold, the ‘forthcoming’ board at the local Christadelphian Hall -

I really thought this particular ‘prophecy’ had been ditched in the early 90′s when the likelihood of such an event became vanishingly small, seems I was wrong (as is the author of this particular lecture)

Just checked the stats and saw that this blog (in both its homes, here and in the old place on Blogger) has hit 123,000 page views! Incredible – I honestly didn’t ever expect to get that high, especially in only just over a year of writing.

Genuinely touched, thank you all!

Wow! I can’t believe that the time has gone by so fast! It’s been a year since this post introduced the name Sye Ten Bruggencate to this blog. In that time I have learned loads, finessed my arguments against theists, and generally had a great old time.

Sye, on the other hand, has learned nothing, and hasn’t changed his argument at all. He sees this as a strength, I see his dullness of thought as a major weakness.

Still, a whole year! Wow again!