I bet you talk with an American accent as well.

And why don't your posts go after > signs when I reply?

Everybody else's do.

Uncle Davey wrote:

"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108762614.044140.63430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Okay, Davey, I'm starting to get more time for posting.

Let's deal with this, shall we?

You wrote:

Jason Gastrich has always managed to attract a lot of comment
with his appearances on Usenet.

Well, Jason has only himself to blame for that.

True. Had he chosen any other creed than evangelical Christian, he'd

be one

of the good guys.

You might consider, Davey, that just once, you could forgo the standard
sort of dishonesty that permeates your responses whenever you try to
play up a comment for the sake of rhetoric and sophistry.

Otherwise, I can say that only a complete imbecile would read what I
have had to say and come up with that response.

As I have said enough times, now, it's not Jason's beliefs that get him
into trouble.

It's the way he presents them - and himself.

Given that he had no real credibility early in his Usenet career,

he

decided to CREATE credibility by arranging for the bestowal of the
phony doctorate, on which he presumed to trade.

That may have been an error of judgment.

An "error in judgment?"

Jason is one who believes in authority, and he wants to POSSESS
authority.

So he sought out a quick, easy way to presume authority, and he tried
to exploit it.

It didn't work; and he was exposed as a fraud.

These honorary doctorates exist and
quite a few people in your country go for them, or they wouldn't be

there.

That's rather beside the point, Davey.

I have an "honorary" doctorate, but I'm sure this is the first you're
hearing about it.

< snip irrelevant meandering >

He was, of course, called on that and discovered, much to his

chagrin,

that the Usenet world does not prostrate itself before him as he
expected it to do; and it wasn't impressed with his phony

"doctorate."

Well I'm not overimpressed with real ones either.

Which isn't really pertinent to Jason's attempt to exploit an arranged,
HONORARY doctorate.

Whatever you make think of some who possess legitimate credentials,
Davey, you continue to turn a blind eye to Jason's misuse of an
arranged, HONORARY doctorate.

Ultimately, it and he were exposed as frauds, and it was all

downhill

from there for Jason Gastrich.

What generally happens is that there is a core of people getting

into

discussions with him who can manage to keep a civil tongue in

their

head,

but get very intolerant if Jason cannot keep up with their

endless

screed

of questions.

And here, you begin to rather blatantly engage in rhetoric,
misdirection, and dishonesty.

"Endless screed of questions?"

Isn't there a thread on f.c. that says "Day 26, etc etc" which asks

the same

question over and over, in violation of the free.christians FAQ that

allows

a maximum of three asks of the same question?

The last time I looked, Davey, one cannot really put any requirements
on any group in the free.* hierarchy.

I'm not aware of any FAQ, but I am also not impressed any attempt by
Jason to make his own rules in that area. If he wants to restrict the
asking of questions, it's clear by now why that might be.

Further, I'd suggest that the question is, as many others, prompted by
Jason's own claims, and so it is IN RESPONSE to him.

It didn't appear out of the blue.

The questions put to Jason are generally asked as a result of

things

Jason has written or done in Usenet, on the Internet, and elsewhere

as

HE, HIMSELF, chooses to advertise.

That Jason continues to act in a dishonest, fraudulent, petulant

and

juvenile manner in those environs results in more questions.

He keeps on getting asked about that doctorate even when he made it

clear it

was an honorary one and doesn't use it on Usenet.

Actually, he does - at least, on occasion - and his "reasons" for the
cessation of its use were arrogant and posturing nonsense.

His recent "press release," posted as it was in USENET, identifies him
as "Doctor."

And he keeps getting asked about it because his use of it is wrong, and
some of us are trying to impress that upon him.

Furthermore, part of the argument is that he only "made it clear" that
it was honorary when he was outed about it, and he still doesn't fully
explain - and uses deceptive language to conceal - it's honorary nature
in other areas on the Internet.

In short, the whole thing is a lie, and it need to be exposed.

That he is intransigent about it isn't the problem of the questioners.

If it's an "endless screed," as you put it, it's likely because

Jason

is also a coward and won't answer those questions.

During this visit to Usenet, to counter claims that he was

'running',

Is THAT why he came to Usenet, Davey?

Well, I agree. Jason said enough at the time to make that clear.

That was my take on it, although I can't answer for him.

Then why do you expend so much effort in presuming to do so?

But Jason told the readers of his periodic devotions that he came

back

to "minister" to others.

So which is it?

The one doesn't necessarily exclude the other.

They do when one considers the context in which the comments were made.

he has been able to answer in a very fair way most of the matters
which were being rehearsed over and over in his absence.

First of all, Jason was never "absent." His comments make it quite
clear that he was very aware of what was going on.

Granted.
But he was limiting himself to lurking, at that time.

So he wasn't "absent."

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Secondly, he never answered anything in a "very fair way."

Care to debate that, Davey?

Pick one of those issues, call it "number one," and let's take a

look.

I think he gave the Grinder questions on his post resurrection

chronology a

good shot, and then the rapture issue, the Daniel prophesy issue. I

don't

actually necessarily agree with a single one of those expositions,

but I

have to say he argued his corner.

So with the disclaimer that you don't necessarily agree with his
answers in these subjects, you decide that he answered them in a "very
fair way."

Which one shall we call "number one," Davey?

The resurrection chronology?

That's fine, because I can point out that he HASN'T answered for that
in any way that a thinking person would call "fair," he used excuses to
dodge the point, and when Sean even returned to ask him about it, he
ran.

Now new questions are being posed in their place.

Is Jason somehow immune to being asked questions?

NO, but he gets a lot more questions than it is easy to answer since

there

is a deficit of evangelicals to skeptics on Usenet.

He gets the questions because his comments prompt the questions.

On the outside of this group is another group more or less

abusively

commenting on the progress of the debates of the first group -

the

abuse always being directed at Jason, of course, and these are

made

up

of people who were having discussions, but who were unable to

control

their manners and got excluded from further discussion by Jason.

In what way were the people "unable to control their manners,"

Davey?

I know you're referring to the participants in JCSM Watch, so let's

get

to it.

The regular participants in the Watch are civil there and they have
been mostly civil here.

I am not referring to your BB2 group in that case, I get to that

later. I

will grant that most of the core rudeness takes place on Usenet

proper,

rather than under your moderation. Credit where credit is due.

I say "mostly" because, even though I'm inclined to say "always," I
can't immediately recall a time when any of them acted without

civility

or who weren't, at least, provoked into some indiscretion by Jason,
himself.

But I may have missed a more dramatic lack of civility on the part

of

the participants.

So, really, you're just lying, aren't you?

No, you are reinterpreting what I said.

No, I'm "interpreting" it as you wrote it.

You're backpedalling now. That's all.

The key player in this group is David Sienkiewicz, the owner of

the

group JCSM Watch, a man who seems destined to waste his presmably

hard

earned retirement chasing Jason around the net and interfering

with

his

ministry to the lost.

Jason does not operate a "ministry to the lost." Jason is

interested

in the promotion and welfare of one person, and that is Jason

Gastrich.

In your opinion.

I can back up that opinion, Davey.

Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that this is the only
thing that I do with my retirement, hence, it is wasted.

It's not Davey. I have lots of other interests.

Don't let the volume of messages fool you. Very few of them take

much

time to type out.

And I DO multitask quite a bit.

So what? Is this all about YOU now?

In case you didn't notice, Davey, that was in reply to YOUR claims
"about" me and what I am wasting my time doing.

Finally, I don't "chase" Jason around the net. I respond to him

and to

threads about him - and I don't even do that to all of the threads

and

comments made.

Now, we can argue those things, but you'll be wrong, and I can

point

out that you waste YOUR time defending an obvious liar and fraud -

and

it taints you.

I have defended him because I think that the fraud is in the eye of

the

beholder, taking a handful of errors of judgement and turning the man

that

mde them into the next Benny Hinn.

No, Davey, I am not turning him into anything.

Whatever Jason is, he determines for himself.

I choose to expose that, and make him answer for it one way or the
other.

He deserves, as do all other people, an
advocate.

This is Usenet, Davey. Not a courtroom.

Do you tell your lawyer friends that they are tainted when they
have acted for the defence of a person who is convicted at trial?

Yes, if it turns out that the person is guilty and the lawyer knew it
in advance.

Yes, if it turns out that the lawyer sought to free a guilty person on
a technicality regardless of the determination of truth.

Yes, Davey, in LOTS of instances, I would tell my "lawyer friends"
PRECISELY that they are tainted.

But it's not the same as we find here.

Or in that
case do you bleat what all lawyers bleat that everyone has the right

to an

advocate?

This isn't a courtroom, Davey.

In the justice system, all are entitled to an advocate.

But if the party is guilty, that advocate has different
responsibilities.

You cloud guilt, turn a blind eye to guilt, or see the guilt and lie
about it.

You are tainted, just as any dishonest advocate would be tainted.

Yet you don't really believe that, as your big beef with me is
that I am pretty much the one person who has carried on giving Jason

the

benefit of the doubt at every stage, and been proved right.

You have yet to be proven right, Davey.

Each of your "defenses" has failed in light of the fact that Jason's
critics have evidence and all you have is wishful thinking.

And, Davey? I have a few "big beefs" with you. Your sycophantic
fawning over Jason is just one of them - no more or less than any of
the others.

I've already touched on that, and you've ducked out so many times,

I've

lost count.

Then you come back in again.

He has stated that he considers Jason on a par with some of the

famous

fraudulent evangelists who were just ripping people off for

money,

I consider Jason of the same type, not "on a par."

Jason is small potatoes compared to them.

I'm making sure he doesn't become a "big potato."

You're a bit like a colorado beetle, then, in other words?

If that's the analogy you'd like to use, Davey, knock yourself out.

but has not been able to provide convincing evidence for this,

always

claiming that he has it, but never managing to come with it.

And, of course, this, too, is a lie.

There have been many examples of Jason's dishonesty - all of which
have, at best, elicited excuses and wishful thinking from YOU in

reply.

Jason's phony doctorate.

His dishonest and bad faith use of domains.

His use of his ministry to front for his financial (and even
educational, if you can call it that) gain.

His lies regarding the Hot Lava Software affair.

His bad faith attempts to silence his critics.

His attempt to use the courts as an instrument of harassment.

All of these and other issues are well-known here, Davey, and they

are

ALL evidenced by Jason's own behavior, if nothing else.

He 'll grow out of his errors.

These weren't "errors," Davey.

These were breaches of integrity and honesty that indicate an
underlying pathology indicating sociopathic tendencies, clouded by
religious delusion.

He's still a young man, and he'll get through
this,

That would be fine with me, Davey, as I've said.

But I don't see it happening.

and learn from this time on Usenet to think twice before he follows
the bad habits of some other people. He still has his heart in the

right

place,

The "right place" is actually self-promotion.

and gets the truth out to more people than most other people I know
personally.

In order to get the truth out, he has to have it.

He doesn't have it.

There's lots of evidence of Jason's arrogance, dishonesty and
duplicity, as well as what appears to be an attempt - like so many
others - to turn the Internet into a money-making venture.

By itself, that's not a bad thing.

It's HOW he goes about it, Davey.

Yes, some of those things could do with revision, and I'm sure he

will

revise them.

Why are you so sure?

His stated aim is to close down Jason's ministry,

Or, as I said, to cause Jason to rethink his strategies and

actually

build something for good rather than for just himself, and consider

it

a true service to God.

I said that a couple of times, and you and Jason both ignored it.

Because it begs the question that he is deliberately being selfish

now.

How does it do that, Davey?

I don't see that. He is trying to serve God truly, but pride

blemishes it.

And I see that he's serving himself.

He might be deluding himself a bit and pretending it's God, but it's
not.

Just like you, he serves his own image of what God is, and so he's
really serving only himself.

I know that because I've been there. He reminds me of myself, as I

used

to be.

Oh, dear.

It's worse than I thought.

this being one of the very few ministries in the on-line world to
give such a strong and coherent voice to fundamental

Christianity.

In fact, Jason's ministry is pretty pathetic compared to most

others

that I know about.

An arrogant and self-centered voice is not necessarily a "strong"
voice. Jason's is one of the weakest in the industry.

Really? So why the attention from you, then? Ah yes, the Colorado

Beetle

theory. You still think he could be a big potato, and that's what

worries

you.

It doesn't worry me, Davey.

It entertains me. It gives me something to do. It allows that I can
still make a difference in some small way.

I admit all of that, Davey, as I have before.

I'm too old to be marching in Civil Rights marches and doing sit-ins
and protests and such.

But I can keep trying to make the world a better place in my own way,
and if that way is keeping a small parasite from becoming a big
parasite, that's fine with me.

He doesn't even know his Bible particularly well, Davey. He's a

fraud.

He's 28.

He's 30, Davey.

He has time to learn more and more of it. He might even start doing
the old "medaber ivrit".

Then again, he might not.

It's pretty clear that this self-described "Bible scholar" doesn't feel
he has anything else to learn.

Even the so-called "doctorate" that he's working on is designed to tow
a party line - not to be challenging or even particularly much of a
learning experience.

This is what it's all about. They lay into Jason's faults (and

sure,

he

has them, like everyone else, but nobody else gets the extra

special

treatment that he gets)

Nobody else makes as much noise as he makes or presents so many
opportunities for criticism.

Jason brings this all on himself, Davey. He expects a free ride,

and

he justifies his behavior with once-saved-always-saved.

Well, that is a doctrine of Calvinism, whether you like it or not.

I suspect that you know as little about Calvin as you did about Luther,
Davey, but what I think of the doctrine, itself, has little to do with
Jason using it to justify dishonest, predatory and mean-spirited
behavior.

Jason has faults. You have faults. I have faults. That's
diversionary talk. No one cares about faults.

You do, because you get a lot of mileage out of them.

I would get a damned sight less out of them if the object of our
discussion showed any inclination for humility and a real desire to
learn about them, wouldn't you say?

What's being examined are arrogance and a lack of integrity.

Jason is being made ACCOUNTABLE. He can't abide that.

Apparently, neither can you.

I'm perfectly accountable, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Not so far.

For one thing, you keep making excuses.

And you ducked out of our discussion in which we were examining your
religious beliefs and the foundation and intellectual veracity for
them.

If you
have anything on me that suggests that I may not accountable then

come on

out with it, I must have forgotten about it and you could help me to

deal

with it.

Let's start with your sycophantic *****-kissing of Jason, Davey, which
you conceal behind your claims that he needs an "advocate" rather than
the truth.

every opportunity they get, but it's all about putting people off

the

Christian message.

Jason doesn't represent "the Christian message," Davey, so no, it's

not

about that.

The thing is, every single Christian to appear on the core

atheist

groups such as alt.atheism, talk.origins and others has been
systematically character assassinated.

Talk.origins is not an atheist group, Davey, and I think you'd be
hard-pressed to prove your claim, in any case.

I already retracted that sentence in the later discussion on the

thread

after Harvestdancer pointed out that I had not been accurate.

I don't recall, but that's fine, Davey.

Consider my "correction" retracted, as well.

I know several Christians whom have posted to talk.origins, for
example, and have not been "systematically character assassinated"

in

the manner that you would represent.

People like Jason get nailed. So do you.

We should consider the common characteristics of those who DO get
challenged, even attacked.

Would you care to get into that?

You can character assassinate me if you want to. I don't mind.

That isn't what I asked, Davey.

I asked if you would like to consider the "common characteristics" of
those whom you claim get attacked in that way.

It's good for
one's humility, and I can always do with some exercise in that area.

Yes, that's certainly true enough.

alt.atheism is, of course, populated by a more, shall we say,
opinionated group. But even there, people who show proper respect

for

the beliefs of others are usually treated well.

People who behave as Jason does get justifiably roasted.

This IS Usenet, after all.

Yes. It is. And on Usenet most people have allies as well as enemies,

and as

you see, Jason gastrich has no exception. That doesn't mean I buy

into all

his projects 100%. I would do a lot of things differently. But in the

main I

am pleased that he exists, that he contributes to Usenet, and I like

to see

someone who has the right intentions deep down inside, and will be
influenced positively by the interaction Usenet offers. I have

optimism as

to the outcome. I don't write people off.

Actually, Davey, you'd be quick to write someone off if they weren't so
closely allied with you in so many ways - maybe even in a vested
interest in JCSM, a membership in OCCM, a web service for which you
probably get a discount, and so on.

Then again, it's possible that you're just too naive, and I'm too
cynical. In a case like that, perhaps the truth is somewhere in
between.

The only Christians who are tolerated there are those who join in

the

whipping of the Christian right, who put political issues,

especially

left wing ones, above doctrinal issues, and who will not openly
evangelise and are even hard for us to draw on what they believe
doctrinally.

In my view, Christians who behave as bulwarks against the righteous
right are the true Christians, Davey, truly following Jesus and his
example.

Christianity was never supposed to be a political creed. It got

spoiled when

it got politicised. Some people seem to think that Jesus was an early
version of Che Guevara, but I think they are misunderstanding what

the

Kingdom of God is about, and what human nature is and what salvation

is.

Well, I would argue those points with you. While not thinking of Jesus
as Guevara, I would argue that he - if he existed at all as described
in the Gospels - was very far from the he's represented by groups from
American fundamentalists to Calvinists.

You can expect me to take that up, also. I suspect you'd be very
surprised to read some of what Calvin had to write.

For example, of the Jews, Calvin wrote:

"Their rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be
oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in
their misery without the pity of anyone."

That's from "The Jew in Christian Theology," Davey.

And it is those Christians who, in many cases, expose people like

Jason

as frauds and phonies. There have been numerous examples, the most
notable, in my view, being Frank Pericope.

And all Frank really did was suggest and then illustrate that if

you're

going to be a literalist, be an HONEST literalist.

All well and good, but when I started asking him about what he in

fact

believed then an interesting mix of literal belief and non-literal

belief

came out, so he was picking and mixing himself.

I saw those exchanges, Davey, and wasn't impressed at all with the
intellectual value of your part in them, and as I recall, you decided
to drop out of the discussions, just as Jason did.

It simply took you longer.

Frank had a more intellectual view of things. His "interesting mix"
turned out to be quite reasonable under the circumstances.

Those who refuse to menplease and proclaim christ and Him

crucified

an inerrant Bible and salvation by faith, not works,along with

the

natural corollary of that, the Doctrine of Eternal Security, are
immediately blasted until they have enough and leave.

It's a pretty stupid set of beliefs, Davey, as I was explaining

when

you decided to flee the thread.

However, again, it's less what you believe and in the way you

present

and carry yourselves.

But in Jason's case they pursued him even when he did leave,

He never left, Davey.

He even created more accounts and at least one pseudonym so that he
could spam newsgroups with advertising for his e-book.

Have you seen it? Have you obtained a copy?

Seen what? Obtained a copy of what? His e-book?

Yes, Davey, I had a copy.

You saw my review, didn't you?

so now he's back.

And cowering and hiding, as he usually does.

So nothing's really changed, had it?

This is an appeal to those who are Christians to give this

brother

the

benefit of the doubt,

We've had this discussion, too, Davey.

Jason has over-used the benefit of the doubt; and my levels of that

are

not unlimited.

to give him the sort of support that brothers ought to give to

each

other,

The problem is that this presupposed that other Christians view

Jason

as their "brother."

Some do. Many don't.

Why should those that don't give him any benefit of the doubt,
especially once he has burned them a few times?

"70*7", David.

I am aware of the verse which, interpreted, pretty much means "into
infinity."

But see what I said IN CONTEXT, Davey, and that is that Jason is a wolf
in sheep's clothing.

In fact, if he's an embarrassment to them, wouldn't it be prudent

of

any Christian to expose this "wolf in sheep's clothes?"

Let's just have a witch hunt for evangelicals, why don't we?

How does this answer what I'm saying here, Davey?

You and Jason do like your martyr talk, but you know I won't indulge
you on that subject.

and to pray that some of the lost will be saved by receiving the

truth from

his posts and links.

Jason does not engage in truth, Davey.

To see more, join in the group free.christians, and also see what
nonsense and libel is being spouted with no back-up on JCSM

Watch.

As I said, Davey, nothing has been claimed for which there is no
evidence, and you are free to show that it IS "nonsense and libel."

When challenged on specific issues in that regard, we find that all

you

have is wishful thinking and speculation.

You have gone from a self-described "businessman of great statute"

to a

smarmy and dishonest sychophant and *****-kisser to one of the more
dishonest Usenet ministers to come down the pike in many a day.

You may have made Jason proud, but you have humiliated God.

Then again, you do seem to confuse the two.

Christ did say that a cup of cold water given to one of His own was a

cup of

cold water given to Him, and I am a bearer of a cup of cold water in

a very

hot environment. If that humiliates God, then it's not the way I

intend it.

I intend is as an act of obedience.

That doesn't really answer the point either, Davey.

Nevertheless, I am not going to be doing it for ever, and you are on

notice

that from the end of February, I am not responding to questions

regarding

Jason, since I have already said my piece on the matter.

If you had half an ounce of sense, you'd have stayed out of it months
ago, as I tried to gently suggest a few times.

But I am not interested in your "notice," Davey.

Between now and the
end of February we can still discuss his case, which gives you nine

days

more to get any closing comments from me on any "evidence" you may

think you

have, but from 1st March (St David's day) onwards my lips are sealed

on

Jason's matters.

You haven't had any real intelligent answers for the evidence thus far.
You even skipped responding to any of the points listed further up.

That's okay, Davey. I'd actually like to get into an historical and
empirical examination of Calvinistic beliefs, but I suspect you won't
stick around for THOSE, either.

I am on record as saying what I think, and carrying on for too long

may only

be adding fuel to the fire.

You're only NOW figuring that out?