Talk:Brian Flemming/Archive 1

Flemming v Centuri0n

For the second time, I have reverted some recent changes made to this article. I have done this for three reasons:

1. The edit contains un-encyclopedic language.
2. The interaction of Flemming with one particular person is insufficiently interesting to merit inclusion in the article.
3. The editor is to some extent writing about himself, which is contrary to this guideline.

—Laurence Boyce 19:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Boyce --

First of all, I apologize for being a n00b wiki contributor. There is no doubt that writing about one's self is against wiki policy, and as that would be valid reasoning to remove the edits, I do not contest removing the content if it is in violation of that standard.

However, I contest that the content was about me. It included my name -- no question there. It also included links to my blog -- no question there, either. However, the content was about Brian's only written interaction with another person on the subject of his "War on Easter", and as such deserves attention because his "War on Easter" is probably his most widely-advertised effort to date.

This is my original language for the edit:

Subsequent to that advertising campaign, Flemming interacted on-line for a series of 5 questions with a Christian blogger known as centuri0n[1] (a.k.a. Frank Turk) at a site called DebateBlog[2]. Flemming declared himself the winner[3], but subsequently issued a set of rules governing his future debates [4]. Future debate partners would have to sign and notarize the following statement:

	STATEMENT OF BELIEF 	 
-I believe it is possible that Jesus did not exist. 	 
-I believe there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the time of his alleged life. 	 
-I believe there are no written eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ. 	 
-I believe the names of the Gospels were added well after their composition, and there is no good reason to 	 
believe that these names correspond to the original writers. 	 
-I believe there is no good reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ, 	 
or that any eyewitnesses to Jesus were involved in their composition. 	 
-I believe the Bible is not infallible. 	 
-I believe it is common for religious cults to make things up. 	 
-I believe it is common for religions to influence each other, and for young religions to be derived from older 	 
religions. 	 
-I believe that any claim can be part of Christian tradition and also be false. 	 
-I believe that no figures such as "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "Satan" performed any supernatural actions that 	 
had any significant effect upon the formation of early Christianity. 	 
-I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. 	 

It is interesting to note that more than half of these affirmations are substantively part of Flemming's standard presentation of his case. Whether anyone will be willing to engage him under these circumstances remains to be seen.

For the sake of being a better wiki-contributor, I'd be interested in finding out what the unencyclopedic language is, and how these facts can be updated and added to reflect their relevance to Brian's particular work here.

Your particular concern that this is about Brian's interaction with only one person seems to ignore that this interaction is going to govern all his future interactions on this topic. Given that one of the significant outcomes of this interaction is Brian essentially refusing to debate or discuss this topic with evangelical Christians, I think it is more significant than I am personally.

If the "War on Easter" is legitimate content in this entry, then the events surrounding it in question ought to be legitimately portrayed.

--centuri0n 20:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding centuri0n, you may call me Laurence if you wish. I will try to answer your queries, though please bear in mind that I am relatively new to Wikipedia myself. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

First, some general observations. I take a degree of interest in Brian Flemming—I have viewed The God Who Wasn't There, and read his blog occasionally, which I find mildly amusing. Broadly speaking, I am in agreement with him. As I understand it, Flemming seeks to make what he considers to be a serious point concerning the historicity of Jesus and religion in general, by employing humour which includes, from time to time, pranks and stunts. To this extent, I feel that you may have taken him slightly more seriously than he takes himself.

As far as un-encyclopedic content is concerned, the following extract, I would suggest, is a statement of opinion and speculation:

It is interesting to note that more than half of these affirmations are substantively part of Flemming's standard presentation of his case. Whether anyone will be willing to engage him under these circumstances remains to be seen.

As far as writing about yourself is concerned, I feel you have erred in simply including too much material concerning this episode, in an article which should principally be about Flemming. Including the full "Statement of Belief," in my view, is over the top. I don't suppose he expects anyone in the world to sign and notarize it—he's just making one of his points.

I have to say that, having actually followed the links now, I am still of the view that this episode does not merit inclusion. I take quite an interest in these debates, but even I could not be troubled to read through the entire thing. I am sorry, I know from my own experience how disheartening it is when others appear not to be totally engrossed in one's activities!

If you really feel that you would like to include something about this episode, then I would suggest no more than the following:

Subsequently, Flemming participated in an online debate with a Christian blogger known as "centuri0n." [5]

Sorry, I know it isn't much! I'm afraid I do not see it as significant whether Flemming is or is not refusing to debate with this or that party, as he does not represent anyone but himself really. He's just a filmmaker and blogger, out to make what he sees as a serious point, but have a laugh at the same time.

All of the above is merely my opinion! Thank you again for your interest.

—Laurence Boyce 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Laurence --

I'll take it. I think that this citation, including the link, is 100% substantial. I appreciate your open mind and guidance on this matter.

I would also agree, btw, that it's hard to imagine why anyone wouldn't be as interested in me as I am.  :-)

--70.182.105.190 22:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reviewer stated there was poor filming quality in a Brian Flemming movie

I decided the following review of the filming quality of Brian Flemming's movies should be alluded to.

Here is the review I read of the poor filming quality of Brian Flemming's "The God Who Wasn't There":

"The filming is poor. This is most likely the result of Flemming’s working from a shoestring budget and either his inexperience or lack of gifting. The poor quality is sometimes distracting. For instance, in two interviews with Robert Price and David and Barbara Mikkelson, there is a distracting reflection of camera light and sunlight in their eyeglasses. In the interview with Price, the camera can even be seen in his eyeglasses, because it is directly in front of him. Changing the angle would have easily eliminated this. Flemming did not bother to straighten the tilted lampshade in his interview with Price. The quality of the filming reaches its low in Flemming’s interview with Scott Butcher. Because of backlighting, Butcher looks very dark. Flemming uses only one camera throughout his interviews and asks his questions from behind the camera, producing the impression that one is viewing a homemade video rather than a professional production. The graphics are very repetitive, seldom change, and are of a low quality. Yet, as we shall see, the film’s technical difficulties are the least of its problems." [6] ken 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

And who made the above remarks exactly? An experienced film critic? It's obviously a low budget documentary—I think the criticism is both ungracious and irrelevant, and quite clearly unnecessary here.—Laurence Boyce 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian flemming is a film maker. That is his claim to fame. If his filming is substandard as is shown above, then I think this is relevant. ken 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Who made those remarks—a film critic, or a Christian activist? I have viewed The God Who Wasn't There twice, and have discussed it with a number of people, Christians and non-Christians alike. Of all the discussions and disagreements we had, I cannot recall anyone saying, "what a bad piece of film making." We all just took it to be what it is—a low budget documentary.

Have it your way, but it doesn't reflect very well.—Laurence Boyce 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the movie discussed and a person said the filming was poor. Here is a choice quote from above: "In the interview with Price, the camera can even be seen in his eyeglasses, because it is directly in front of him. Changing the angle would have easily eliminated this." [7] I think you would do well to admit that Brian Flemming's filming tecnique is quite poor and move on. ken 03:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I have now loaded an image of Robert Price here. God, I can see what you mean—it's just terrible. I don't know how I watched that interview without ever noticing the dazzling reflection. Yup, Flemming is definitely the worst film maker I have ever seen.—Laurence Boyce 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For the second time I have removed the section concerning Flemming's film-making skills, in line with the discussion over here.—Laurence Boyce 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello 132.241.x.x

Please do not make repeated anonymous edits to the article without first explaining your actions on talk.—Laurence Boyce 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We will not talk to you via the edit comments.—Laurence Boyce 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be the attention seeker?—Laurence Boyce 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello 69.104.x.x

Please do not make repeated anonymous edits to the article without first explaining your actions via talk.—Laurence Boyce 05:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Material Left at Churches

Laurence Boyce—

The facts are

• that Flemming is encouraging people to leave material on church property which argues against the doctrine of those churches
• that Flemming is posting pictures of these exploits on his website

It is really not sufficient to make vague references to a campaign that would theoretically be described in another entry that doesn't presently exist despite a childless wikification.

Now, I know that Devilmaycares is a POV-pusher, and has at time slipt into vandalism (including vandalism of this article); but here he is basically correct. And I am going to take submit this for Arbitration if you won't admit the datum in some reasonable form. (One reasonable form might be for you to turn that hypothetical article into an actual article.) —12.72.71.160 13:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I have reverted these edits for the second time for the following reasons:

1. Using the terms "propaganda" or even "doctrinal material" is tendentious.
2. Saying that Flemming encourages people to "sneak" into churches is a bit tendentious.
3. Worst of all, what has been written is inaccurate. As I understand it, we are talking here about the so-called "War on Easter" which was, well, in Easter. There is no "current" activity on this front that I am aware of.
4. The "War on Easter" is already covered in the section and doesn't require any further detail.
5. Categorising Flemming as anti-Catholic is tendentious. He is not specifically anti-Catholic; he is anti all religion and the cat "Criticism of religion" aptly reflects this.

Laurence Boyce 13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC

Well,

1. If you can find a better term for material advocating a particular position, then I'd welcome it.
2. Again, perhaps you can find a better term than “sneak”, but it's clear that participants couldn't put their material some of the places that they have without acting surreptitiously.
3. Perhaps you can show me where, on that website, a halt is declared. If actions are represented as laudable, without anything to indicate that they were but some how no longer are, then they are encouraged.
4. There is absolutely nothing in the article explaining the methods of the “War on Easter”. For all that one might infer from the article, it could represent throwing eggs at Easter Bunnies.
5. I agree that Categorizing Flemming as anti-Catholic is here at best misleading.

—12.72.71.160 13:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---