No problem, but before I cease and desist I’d like to quote the StarTribune, which reported that “While on the run, Beale, through a son, tried to get $600,000 from his Swiss bank account to buy property in Switzerland.” So it may not be strictly true that young Theodore has no portion of those crimes on his conscience.

I’ve been reading TIA. Are you offering that as an example of Vox’s talk, or claiming it as “action”? Do you happen to know what Vox’s “strong arguments” for gods are?

I have repeatedly questioned Vox’s reasoning in TIA. Obviously I’m biased, but as far as I could tell my points were reasonable and my tone no more insolent than his. His response has been to ban me from his blog and the TIA forums, usually claiming that I don’t understand his arguments sufficiently to argue them. Interestingly enough, his most consistent defence against critics is to accuse them of misunderstanding his arguments – which leads to the rather obvious conclusion that either his arguments or his writing is incomprehensible.

I’ll debate him in any forum that he wants, but it’s clear that what he really wants is the attention; debating a nobody like me doesn’t bring him that attention.

It’s not a question of whether the debate would be easy for PZ or anyone else, it’s that so far there’s not much reason to expect that Vox would use the time for anything productive. He could just as well achieve his sort of “victory” by spending the radio time tweaking PZ’s nose, verbally abusing him, and denying him the “satisfaction” of a straight and relevant answer.

If Vox had the real goods, he could easily post them where all of his followers could benefit from them and use them in their own dialogs with unbelievers. But that wouldn’t give him the chance to monopolize PZ’s time for an hour or so, nor would it let him brag that he had bearded the lion in his own den. That, plus the fact that he apparently doesn’t have any strong arguments for God, only goes to show that this so-called debate would be “not merely a waste, but a criminal misuse of time, so little of which is alloted to us on this mortal orb.”

I think running away is a hereditary trait in the Beale family. Robert ran away from the taxman, and Theodore ran away from his country. Why stop there? Run, Ted, run!

Thanks for that. I always wondered what the technical term was.

“Anyhow, Rich, I think you’re forgetting that regardless of what you might think of me, I have far more credibility in the media and around the world than PZ Myers does. US Congressmen, Fortune 500 CEOs, international economists, and famous novelists aren’t about to return his calls.”

The other technical term wouldn’t happen to be “Arrogant Blowhard” would it? Just wondering.

Given Vox’s past history of ignoring posts he can’t refute or criticizing them without linking to them so people can read what the person actually said (Orac), I’m sure he thinks everyone operates in the cowardly way he does.

“he should post them on his blog, where they’ll be easily available, accessible to major search engines, and documented for some time to come. Plus they’ll be dissectable, not subject to emotional influences like on-mike vocal expressions or stage presence, or to artificial time limits necessarily imposed by the radio show format, or to engineering manipulations like cutting off the mike to keep someone from making a point. Vox is already using his blog to try and state his case against PZ; let’s see if he can use it to make a strong case for God.”

See, words have actually been said here, indicating reasons why a agreeing to a radio debate would be a stupid idea if one’s goal were really to get to the bottom of things. All you have to do is acknowledge the existence of these words and address the reasons. The point is really very simple: A valid argument would be equally forceful and persuasive in written comment as in spoken debate; An argument that depends on venue bias, rhetorical slight-of-hand and emotional manipulation to be persuasive would not. What’s the problem here? This is really a very simple point.

Of course, we all know what the problem is, don’t we: Vox doesn’t have an argument that would pass any level of rational and evidentiary scrutiny. Vox doesn’t have any “cards in his hand” and we all know it. You know it too, don’t you; alas, you all just find it much easier to hold up mirrors for Vox while he preens, rather than admit this.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/06/that-settles-that.html

“I had planned to deal with this guy’s chapter-by-chapter approach once Kelly got through with hers. But, since he’s repeatedly demonstrated a near complete inability to make a coherent rebuttal to anything I’ve written, it’s somewhat of a relief to know that I don’t have to bother:”

How convenient! a new pretense for not bothering with you…bet you didn’t see that coming! And from the comments, a new entry for the Annals of Stupendous Self-aggrandizement (ASS):

“Anyhow, Rich, I think you’re forgetting that regardless of what you might think of me, I have far more credibility in the media and around the world than PZ Myers does. US Congressmen, Fortune 500 CEOs, international economists, and famous novelists aren’t about to return his calls.”

I think the technical term is ignorant blowhard

Vox offered a debate. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, it consists of all talk. That’s why the proposed radio venue was ideally suited for it.

As for the value of action, I can see that you are quite impressed with PZ’s action of running away.

Great post. You nailed VD once again. He really is all talk and no action.

As VD’s published work,TIA (The Irrational Atheist), and downloadable for free, demonstrates.

Yeah, that’s that same argument Potter Stewart used about obscenity: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

So, Theodore’s big argument will be to analogize God to obscenity.

How much more evidence does anyone need to know that this guy is a parodist?