Thursday, December 18, 2008

So what if I use a pseudonym, Phil Naessens?

A fellow named Phil Naessens defended Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong over at his website. I commented on his post; instead of publishing my comment in full, he mutilated my post, and now simply refuses to allow any comments by me (update - but after I wrote this post, he decided to change his mind and posted the comment; well, I'm impressed with his tactic. Sure knows how to "rebut" my arguments). And I had ONLY posted ONCE on his blog. Period.

I'm beginning to realize that this is the way intelligent Christian men respond to critics (just like what Watchman Daniel Chew does) – by deleting posts they couldn’t answer, refusing comments on their posts, or by banning your moniker or handle on their website.

I commented here (Phil “the Flash” Naessens took liberty to amend my comments, probably to create a straw man for his inept “rebuttal”).

I am now prevented from replying to his comments, so here is the short reply to Phil:

“Phil, your lack of any logic in thinking is really disturbing:

Phil: Yes, I believe they are….

>Bare assertion; irrational.

Phil: The fact you need to hide behind a fake name is all the proof I need….someone that isn’t a coward would have the courage to reveal his true identity…

> Non sequitur.

Phil: Just calling it like I see it…in your case that was a gimme….

>Bare assertion – now THIS is a gimme …

Phil: What “facts”? I think you should learn the definition of what slander is….and I didn’t slander you…..and we aren’t friends…..

>What “facts?” You don’t know and you want to “pretend” you do by defending the indefensible. I think you should learn the definition of what “logic” is … and I did expose your irrationality … and I take you as a friend contrary to your hostile unchristian attitude towards me.”


I have an issue with the fallacious logic of these “Watchman Chew” apologists (just as Watchman Chew regarded Richard Abanes as Rick Warren’s "apologist", I regard Phil “the Flash” Naessens as his apologist).

Somehow, Phil thinks that, if you use a pseudonym, you are being anonymous and cowardly; but if I give a name, that qualifies a blogger as an intrepid and honest critic (and a watchman?).
This begs the question, “What if I put a name on my blog. Would this guarantee my non-anonymity?”

Of course not!

I can put a graduation photo, an email address, and a name (say “Daniel Chew”) on my blog. And this means I’m being honest and open? What silly logic!

My name could be Mary Chew, but I put “Daniel Chew” on my blog; and I stick a photo of any Daniel Chews on my blog. So that proves that the blogger is “Daniel Chew?”

I can start a blog calling myself Chew Bah Kah, put a photo of a monkey-like-man with a graduation dress, and give you an email address. So now I am “qualified” to give my theological insights and critiques on blogosphere? I can now call myself the Watchman Chew. I now officially watch over pastors (including mine), elders, bishops, archbishops and popes in the full "honesty" of my real nick - Chew Bah Kah. Looks like my monkey can think better than such "watchmen" and "apologists."

This also explains why such “Daniel Chew” apologists i.e. Phil "the flash" Naessens can only rant on their blogs, and can never conjure up good, well-measured, intelligent arguments for their faith and idols (i.e. Daniel Chew).

So what if I use a pseudonym?

This is a red herring at best.

If you can’t answer the questions or criticisms, give a red herring and change the topic (like, “My gosh, you used a pseudonym! You must be a heretic and pagan! What’s your real name? Don't hide behind a nick; I call you out! Come out into the open, you devil!”).

You see, after all those “intelligent” rants, Phil has never addressed the real issue.

What about all my expose of Watchman Chew? He never addressed the real arguments; he has only spouted red herrings, ignoratio elenchis, ad hominems, and non sequiturs.

How intelligent of him.

Update: Another "Debating" Strategy From Our Watchman Chew Apologist: Threatening A Lawsuit.

Do read Phil's recent comment on this post. After a series of inane statements with so much sound and fury - but signifying nothing (i.e. no arguments made but only logical fallacies) - he made his move to "repudiate" my arguments. I must say I'm really impressed. This is what Phil "the flash" Naessen wrote:

BTW: Nice picture eh [referring to my usage of his nice photograph]? Are you aware that particular picture is trademark material and is owned by PhillyFlash Enterprises [translates to "are you aware that legally I owned it?"]...that means you need my permission before you use it [translates to "I'm not happy; I'll get my lawyer if you did not ask my permission] ... not very intelligent Mr. Antithesis [translates to "I have no clue how to refute you, but I can always sue you"]... please remove it within 24 hours [translates to "Haha! I can shut your mouth with my argumentum ad baculum i.e. appeal to the cudgel"].

Oh well, I'll just remove the nice photograph of the Watchman Chew Apologist and avoid the threat of getting sued by our wonderfully loving and discerning "Christian" man who happens to learn this debating strategy from the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 6:1-11). How godly and impressive.

Good job, Phil.


Chew Bah Kah


Anonymous said...

Looks like I struck a nerve eh Mr. Antithesis?

If you think I was defending Daniel Chew then maybe you need to learn how to missed the point completely but from what I see looking around this obsession you consider a website missing the point is your forte....well one of them.

I could give a rip what you write about Chew....or anyone else for that matter...please don't label me a Daniel Chew apologist....I have a career to protect Mr. Antithesis...

Ban you and your comments? Did your nose grow when you wrote that? I posted your "rebuttal"..... Playing the martyr only works when people actually know who you are...

BTW: Nice picture eh? Are you aware that particular picture is trademark material and is owned by PhillyFlash Enterprises...that means you need my permission before you use it....not very intelligent Mr. Antithesis...please remove it within 24 hours.

Thank You and Have a Nice Day

Antithesis said...

Dear "Phil",

You used the name of a "Phil Naessen," hijacked his name, created a blog on blogosphere and try to make the REAL "Phil Naessen" look stupid.

That's a neat trick you got there.

How can you prove that the blog you use REALLY belongs to the REAL Phil Naessen (who's that?)?

And yes, you got a "career" to protect (you president of the US?).

Paul I know, Peter I know, but who is Phil? I even know Bambi and the Three Stooges, but who are you?

I, Chew Bah Kah, likewise have a career to protect.

Wake up, Watchman Chew apologist, whoever you are.

And stop using "Phil Naessen's" name for your puerile posts.

Thank you,

Chew Bah Kah

reader said...

Good one. You have made many "common sense" points about the issues at stake.

Keep it up.


Roderick_E said...

Here's Phil again harassing others. He did the same thing on Phil goes around playing the pious "apologist" -- who is he really? He claims to be a "pastor" but no one has seen his creds and no one knows what church he pastors.

Anonymous said...


Are you lying again? Boy, I really don't know what to do about you. However I did post an article (well, actually LOTS) about you that I would like the good people who come here to see about you INCLUDING that lying comment you made about me at defendingcontending (they deleted that and ALL of his other comments).

For the record I gave Roderick the info he claims no one knows about. (no one knows about my creds? NO ONE?????? )



Anonymous said...

"For the record I gave Roderick the info he claims no one knows about. (no one knows about my creds? NO ONE?????? )"

Perhaps there are those who know who you are, but I don't. Please furnish us with at least the church you are pastoring.

Anonymous said...

Hello PP,

With pleasure.

Its Kanoni Church of Christ.

No website as we don't need one. You can contact Stavros as

behindthe.shades at yahoo dot com


Anonymous said...

I have contacted your colleague Starvos, who was unhelpful in his email. He took issue with the fact that I am using a pseudonym.

Well, all I am asking is a verification that such a church exist and that Phil is their pastor. A bit more info would be nice, but just to dismiss my request because I use a pseudonym is ridiculous. I could have easily set up an account with the name John Smith, would that make a difference?

For a "pastor" who wishes to proclaim the Gospel, you are doing a great job in hiding your church. Somehow (1) I don't believe you are a pastor; (2) your church has 4 people which would resemble a doomsday cult, than a church.

So why should anyone take you seriously, just because you are a "Rev" (according to your friend)?

Anonymous said...


I'm not hiding behind anything Mr. Anonymous.I'm out in the open for all to see.

Where do you live? Where do you work? What do you look like? In my case all that and more is available to anyone with Google Mr. Anonymous.

Even if Stavros would have given you the info you asked for (including PERSONAL info about me) would you have believed him?
Considering you questioned his identity in your email and your comment here its doubtful so what would be the point?

No one, and I mean NO ONE, would ever be foolish enough to hand over information to someone with an agenda and especially not to some gutless anonymous crank named "protestantpope".

Take Care,

Phil Naessens
0030 693 644 4218

Anonymous said...


"some gutless anonymous crank named "protestantpope"."

That's right, a pastor (a "Rev") who calls other people names like that. Well done... And we are meant to come to this 'Jesus' of yours? So that we become like you?

"Even if Stavros would have given you the info you asked for (including PERSONAL info about me) would you have believed him?"

I did not ask him for PERSONAL info about you. All I asked for, if you even read my last post, is a verification that such a church exist and that you are the pastor. A bit more info - like statement of beliefs, denominational affliation, etc, would be nice. That is all.

As I am not looking to move to your area and join your church (and know you now, I am definitely NOT), it would be wrong on my part to expect any more than that.

Perhaps, Phil, as a pastor, you are too suspicious about the motives of others. True, there are nutcases out there. But what about those who are moving to Kanoni (assuming in Corfu) looking for a place of worship? We are interested to know that there are actually Protestant churches in Corfu.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
philthyFlesh said...

Pseudo-Christians who enjoy suing Christians are either not Christians, or Christians with too much money and too little Christ in them.

God save the Church!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Antithesis said...

Ah Anonymous,

You mentioned that you do not share the same beliefs as me with regards to Christ ... so that means you are a pagan?

Your comments were deleted as requested by yourself.

Anonymous said...

Hello Antithesis,

I am writing a follow-up to the Phil Naaesen's issue. First, you are right, I should not have stated you are of a different faith due to the fact I do not know your positions.

Secondly, the reason I am writing now is because Phil Naessen's has chosen two things.
1. He has not deleted his posts about me in a deragatory way as he expected me to do on your site.

2. Secondly, He advertises me as a Fantasy Island character and libels me as he has stated that I had libeled him on your site.

However, his deragatories against me are much more are no less than mine ever was about him making him a total hypocrite especially using law suit tactics as his favorite weapon to control people.

If Phil Naessen's should ever attack me again or use me as an example on his podcasts or his god forum again, I will go toe to toe with him at any level of his choosing including court rooms if he so desires to bring me in as a defendant.

If Naessen's does not remove the Fantasy Island issue will report more on your site as I deem fit. Also, if he doesn't remove me from the podcast that uses me as an example of someone that doesn't have the appropriate view of the dethroned Ted Haggard, I will also consider voicing my views as deemed fit in my own timing.

Phil attacked me as a Fantasy Island character because I responded to Phil Perkins site that stated Phil Naessen's was not what he originally thought he was and stated he was in opposition to Phil Naessen's. They were good friends but parted ways once Phil Naessen's was denouncing Perkins for views he didn't agree with.

I wrote on PHil Perkins site a reply now that sides were being taken..which I took Perkins side over Naessen's causing Naessen's to make a mockery out of me.

Once I heard Naessen's podcast using my story as an example for deragatory reasons, I have felt released to reply in same if when I deemed fit.

In any event I am updating my positions and will leave it at that until the future if needed. Again, if Naessen's wants me to be silent about him the hypocrite needs to do the same...