Tektonics Misery/Brooks Trubee Poo

No Business Like Show Business? discuss getting Brooks a life here Around the time that he lost or left his job as a prison librarian Notice the equivocation now. These people set out lies about "lost" before., Mr. [Holding] put up a page on his web site in which he asked people to send him money so he could devote his life to Christian apologetics. People responded. Needless to say Brookee has the history fouled up. The plea was made while I was working at a solid job AFTER the one I left. Today [Holding]'s apologetics-for-money business is going well-and getting better. Sure it is. "Well" and "better" for Brookee means I'm nowhere near Dan Barker's 500K take. It also means this: In a post on the Theology Web discussion boards, Mr. [Holding] revealed the amount of income he has received from donors over the last three years. As you can see, his home-business is growing by leaps and bounds. This apparently means Brookee considers it a "leap" when he makes it over the curb in the morning. The first year I did virtually no fundraising; donations came only from a few people and it was merely to keep the page online. I also did not get certified as a non-profit until April of that year. ... For the record, here is Tekton's annual receipts (NOT salaries) for the past three years. It has not reached the point where it has to file a Form 941 with the IRS. That threshhold is 25K. 2000 (first year as a 501c3) - 1,742.52 2001 - 12,086.32 2002 - 16,909.97 ... I believe that Mr. [Holding] will stop making this type of information public, unfortunately. Amusingly, I published the 2003 figures plain as day on TheologyWeb, showing receipts of $17,469.15. I had to adjust a Canadian donation, so it's actually 17,442.15. Did Brookee report the shattering of his "belief" on tektonics.com? No -- it has yet to appear to this date in Octonor 2004. Now who's being deceptive? It sure doesn't aid Brookee's "leaps and bounds" case to record an increase of only 3-4%, now, does it? [Holding]'s income is now based on how successful his donors perceive his apologetic efforts to be. False. My income is based on my working skills; all the donations do is dictate how many hours a week I work on apologetics. It is likely that this new career has further biased his "argumentation" (if that is possible) as well as his public self-appraisals. "I'm so frustrated that I think there must be a conspiracy." This is so much easier for Brookee than actually reading books on the ANE, for example. For example, one of the debating tactics that Mr. [Holding] employs is a display of bluster and braggadocio that invariably becomes more shrill and strained the worse he fairs in a debate. Maybe Brookee will learn to spell "fares" someday. In any event, it does become more pronounced indeed, as it becomes evident that an opponent hasn't got anything of substance to offer. As is noted in an article on the Tektonics.org site In a quote that says no such thing, and was written by my co-writer, Mr. Sunlyk, not me: "If you play the nice guy, you're likely to get swarmed, not by any irrefutable arguments, but rather, by a veritable skyscraper of excess and inflammatory verbiage. And unfortunately, there are those, on both sides of the argument, who are persuaded by such things. We are humans, not computers, and a show of confidence or arrogance does, to some, seem to equate with being the victor."    (Note) Since [Holding]'s income now depends on convincing his donors that he is a great apologist, Again, false, as noted. "putting on a show of confidence or arrogance" when his "arguments" (invariably) fail may be more aggressively acted out than when Christian apologetics was merely his hobby. In other words, the frustrated skeptic needs an excuse for his shortcomings. Likewise, other tactics that [Holding] favors, such as childishly insulting those he debates with and denigrating their sources, could see even heavier use. So he would wish. In actuality riposte inhabits less than 10% of the articles on this site. The other 90% is stuff too hard for Brookee to read. In the article Drooling for Dollars, Farrell Till examines [Holding]'s explanation of his apologetics business. And I in turn kick Foo Foo to the curb here. Interestingly got a note of thanks and encouragement from "Infidel Guy" because of this one. Here is Mr. [Holding]'s donor information page, which has instructions on how you can send him your hard-earned money. Yes, I disconnected the link. Explain that one, Brookee. Note: According to the heading on this article, "Offensisensitivity," it was written by "'Phantaz Sunlyk' with additions by James Patrick Holding." Oops. Cover thy ample butt.