an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Dan Marvin Doesn’t Get It

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.


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.

Single Post Navigation

5 thoughts on “Dan Marvin Doesn’t Get It

  1. From now on you’re not allowed to quote yourself the words you use on my blog. It is a copyright violation!

    • Dan, if you post something on your blog stating that then I’ll abide by it. But I don’t think you mean it, because I think you’re just trying to be clever.

  2. That is basically what your demands were. You’re silly

  3. “That is basically what your demands were. You’re silly”

    And you’re a fucking twat if that’s what you genuinely think! Seriously Dan, do you EVER think about what you write before you impotently mash the keyboard?

    Dan, the debate was CLEARLY to go ahead ONLY if Sye agreed to certain stipulations – HE DIDN’T NEED TO AGREE!! He could have easily just walked away, but he didn’t, because he’s a publicity whore.

    No matter how you attempt to spin this you can’t make your pal look like anything other than a man who agreed to terms and then broke that agreement.

    Why are you so desperate to defend Christians no matter how wrong they are? You’ve done it countless times with Sye, Hezekiah Ahaz, and Bob Sorensen – each time defending people who are either lying, libellous, or both. Seem that, when it comes to you, all someone has to do to get away with any old bullshit is proclaim themselves your ‘brother in Christ’.

  4. I disagree with your assessment that Dan doesn’t get it. I think he does get it, but supports Sye’s misdeeds. He would be upset if anyone were to do the same thing to him or anyone he considers a christian. But he considers outsiders to be fair game.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: