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.”

Epilogue

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.

Sincerely,

Chew Bah Kah