an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

It’s Not Just Sye Who Has a Problem With Honouring Agreements

This goes back to last year, but I was recently reminded of it. During Jim and I’s first encounter with Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate the following was recorded (the first voice you hear is that of Eric Hovind)

Pretty clear, huh? Eric explicitly says that the audio should be ‘unedited’ if used, yet he then went and made this from audio from the debate that followed (note the video is on my Youtube channel because I wanted to make sure Eric couldn’t bury this example of his dishonesty) –

Tut tut tut.

Single Post Navigation

26 thoughts on “It’s Not Just Sye Who Has a Problem With Honouring Agreements

  1. syetenb on said:

    Of course the agreement was to post the audio unedited which we did. It was not to prevent subsequent use for analysis of the exchange. Funny thing is, if that was the agreement, then you would be violating it by posting the clip you just posted. The hypocrisy, it burns 🙂

    This video was made in response to YOUR challenge to prove that you said something which you claimed not to say.

    P.S. No one should be surprised that Alex started the clip where he did (mid sentence).

  2. “P.S. No one should be surprised that Alex started the clip where he did (mid sentence).”

    Your words, Syecho.

    YOU were the one who claimed I’d ‘started the clip’ in a particular place, I simply pointed out that I hadn’t.

    Please try to pay attention, you’re looking like an idiot.

    Anyway, that snippet was posted AFTER Eric had ignored the agreement and had made an edited version of the audio, and was posted as commentary on Eric’s inability to keep to his word.

    But why should it matter if that section is edited? Surely, by YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS ELSEWHERE, that’s not part of the podcast? Right? Right? RIGHT? Or is it?

    Make your fucking mind up, moron.

    • syetenb on said:

      It is my position that the video did not violate our agreement, and your subsequent posting of any clip from that exchange exposes the fact that you agree, lest you be a hypocrite. And yes, your clip is yet another example of you posting clips not intended for the podcast. Thanks.

      • Syecular, let’s run through the events with the video above IN ORDER, shall we?

        1. Jim and I agree to not edit the discussion we are about to have you and Eric Hovind, an agreement suggest BY ERIC.

        2. Eric subsequently made a video composed of edited parts of the discussion.

        3. Jim and I found we still had the audio of Eric making the agreement NOT TO EDIT in the first place and posted it as an example of why he’s not trust worthy.

        “posting clips not intended for the podcast”

        Why should it matter whether the agreement was part of the show or not? Does an agreement only stand if it’s broadcast? In that case, why didn’t you stick to the one that YOU made with us? Or is it that the agreement only stands if it ISN’T broadcast? If that’s the case, why did Eric then edit the first debate?

        Checkmate, Syecho.

  3. “your subsequent posting of any clip from that exchange exposes the fact that you agree, lest you be a hypocrite.”

    Syecular, once Eric had ignored the undertaking NOT TO EDIT and gone ahead and made an edited version I assumed that the agreement was no longer valid….or are you demanding I maintain a standard that you and you fellow religionista are unwilling to?

    • syetenb on said:

      “I assumed that the agreement was no longer valid….”

      Perfect! Just what I wanted to hear! Thanks!

      • Why would that be?

        I doubt you can be referring to your infringement of the Fundamentally Flawed audio can you? The audio that your pals at Crown Rights commercialised AND edited AFTER you agreed to not do either?

        The only thing I can think is that you’re trying to say that me posting audio that *I* hold the copyright on to Youtube some how means that YOU can then post edited audio to a religious channel on Youtube? If that’s what you’re aiming for then you’re even more clueless than I previously thought!

        Sye, you’ve lost big time here.

        I also notice you’ve ignored the following –

        “Why should it matter whether the agreement was part of the show or not? Does an agreement only stand if it’s broadcast? In that case, why didn’t you stick to the one that YOU made with us? Or is it that the agreement only stands if it ISN’T broadcast? If that’s the case, why did Eric then edit the first debate?”

        Please explain how your brain works here.

      • syetenb on said:

        “Why would that be?”

        If this ever gets to court, wait and see Sunshine, wait and see 😀 Thanks though!

  4. The caption of Sye with the slogan ‘Proof that God exists’ beneath his picture cracks me up every time.

    Yeah, err, Sye. You remember yesterday when you said we never said anything about editing? And how you mixed and matched between the first conversation and the final one, to make it look as if you were addressing both? And you know how in the above clip, which you’ve known about all along, it’s Eric who specifically agrees not to edit anyone’s comments? Yeah? Apology accepted, you massive prick.

  5. “P.S. No one should be surprised that Alex started the clip where he did (mid sentence).”

    Oh, I just realised I have another question about this – are you saying that the beginning of that sentence from Eric actually had him saying that he WANTED edits made? Are you saying that the supposed ‘lost context’ here would show that Eric had, moments before, said something that was the EXACT opposite of what the audio documents? Or do you agree that the audio presented accurately shows what Eric meant?

    Seems to me that you’ve got yourself into a bit of a mess here, Syecho.

  6. “If this ever gets to court, wait and see Sunshine, wait and see 😀 Thanks though!”

    In other words you’ve not thought this through! Thanks ‘sunshine’

    • syetenb on said:

      “In other words you’ve not thought this through!”

      Wrong again Sunshine! 😀

      • Then prove me wrong, explain –

        Why should it matter whether the agreement was part of the show or not? Does an agreement only stand if it’s broadcast? In that case, why didn’t you stick to the one that YOU made with us? Or is it that the agreement only stands if it ISN’T broadcast? If that’s the case, why did Eric then edit the first debate?

        And you can now add –

        are you saying that the beginning of that sentence from Eric actually had him saying that he WANTED edits made? Are you saying that the supposed ‘lost context’ here would show that Eric had, moments before, said something that was the EXACT opposite of what the audio documents? Or do you agree that the audio presented accurately shows what Eric meant?

        C’mon, for a man who claims to have all the answers and access to ‘ultimate truth’ you’ve being rather shy with explaining yourself!

  7. syetenb on said:

    “You remember yesterday when you said we never said anything about editing?”

    Yes, and I stand by that. In the podcast in question, you never said anything about editing. Cheers.

  8. “Yes, and I stand by that. In the podcast in question, you never said anything about editing”

    “Cannot use ANY PART of this….”

    Is English your second language, Syecular?

    • syetenb on said:

      “Cannot use ANY PART of this…”

      Finish the sentence Sunshine.

      • Syecho, the ‘debate’ was the whole show, right from the very start.

        Still, I’m not surprised that you’re attempting to slither out of being bound by something you agreed to, it’s perfectly consistent with your MO to be honest!

        Keep it up, Sye, because the more you do the more people googling your name find these exchanges and see you for exactly as you are!

  9. Look, I’m going to summarize Sye’s position: “Agreements made with non-christians are not binding on christians and it is the height of wickedness for the non-christians to show that a christian broke his word.”

  10. Sye, if you are not willing to address my comments below in your next reply then you will be banned here as well –

    Why should it matter whether the agreement was part of the show or not? Does an agreement only stand if it’s broadcast? In that case, why didn’t you stick to the one that YOU made with us? Or is it that the agreement only stands if it ISN’T broadcast? If that’s the case, why did Eric then edit the first debate?

    And you can now add –

    are you saying that the beginning of that sentence from Eric actually had him saying that he WANTED edits made? Are you saying that the supposed ‘lost context’ here would show that Eric had, moments before, said something that was the EXACT opposite of what the audio documents? Or do you agree that the audio presented accurately shows what Eric meant?

    Answers or I’ll just kick you to the curb, and you’ll have no cause to complain because you’ll have made the choice to get yourself banned….in fact you’ll have effectively chosen to ban yourself.

  11. I can’t wait to read the court order papers for this, you know. I wonder what his biggest perjury will be? It’s quite exciting to be at the epicentre of one of the biggest own goals in the history of creationist nonsense. And by exciting I mean absolutely fucking hilarious.

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: