Kia Ora whanau,
I am assume you will only be here if you saw the video response that I did to Nathan Oakley and his followers, setting the record straight on the order and accuracy of events leading up to the controversy of
‘Who declined my invitation???!!! Was it Catz or was it Nathan???!!!’
Let me just say from the outset this is utter bullshit and an insignificant ‘issue’ on the landscape of what is really important in the world…but as there has been, in my opinion, misrepresentation of the facts when it comes to how/what was communicated between Nathan and myself…so here is all is.
I would ask that if you are someone who is pro-Catz then I neither want, nor need your defence in this. I don’t want anyone to use this thread to attack or dox or put out any anger towards Nathan or his supporters…I have worked in broadcasting for over 20 year, I have had many, many, many trolls and threats (both physical and verbal…some delivered to my house) over the years and this blip on the landscape of my life does not need any kind of response on my behalf. DON’T DO IT…you’ll only make whatever this is worse.
I would also ask that you read this, especially if you are a supporter of Nathan, and make your own mind up…not use it as a way to confirm how Nathan has said this played out…as much as you can, read through this and see if you agree that I have been unreasonable setting the rules and conditions for my platform, and Nathan declined those conditions…or if Nathan is being unreasonable expecting to be able to set the rules for a platform that he is being invited on. Be honest, be open to acknowledging which side is being accurate even if you a fan of the opposing person…be open to change should you need to.
In saying all of that, here’s the email chain, in its entirety, with any personal contact details removed, no corrections for grammatical mistakes…literally just cut and past off the chain minus some emojis that Nathan used as they screwed with my formatting…but every word is here as they were sent to and fro.
Enjoy…or not…depending on what you think 
Hey Nathan,
I see you run the Flat Earth Debate youtube channel and am wondering if you would like to be a part of a flat earth debate, via Zoom, for my NZ based podcast The Department of Conversation
We are part of NZ’s largest news outlet, Stuff, whose website gets a million views a day and we’d love to have you on to debate the earth being flat.
We’d come up with a moot if you’re interested and get some opposition to you, haven’t got anyone yet…but thought I’d check with you first. If you aren’t interested, or if I don’t hear back from you over the next few days I’ll move on to another person, but for now you are my first choice and I hope you might want to be involved.
Check us out here https://play.stuff.co.nz/page/series-departmentofconversation
Thanks Nathan
Seven minutes later…
Dear Pat
Thanks for your email. Count me in, let me know when you have an opponent.
Sincerely
Nathan Oakley
Hey Nathan
So I have spoken with Conspiracy Catz who is keen to be involved, dunno if you guys have interacted before but he seems keen to be involved.
What we need to do is figure out a timetable, a moot and agree to some ‘rules of engagement’
We are 11 hours ahead of you guys so morning time here and evening for you would probably be best. Do you have an evening that works best for you? Any particular day in the next few weeks? How long could you give the conversation? I was thinking about trying to make it all happen within 90 mins.
As for the ‘rules of engagement’ I was thinking along the lines of
Moderator opens – 1 min
Debaters introduce themselves – 2 mins each
Opening Statements – 10 mins each
Rebuttals – 5 mins each
Back and Forth between two parties, can ask questions of one another etc…and moderator can ask questions as well – 15-30 mins
Questions from the audience 5 – 20 mins
Closing Statements 3 mins
Moderator wraps 2 mins
I want to moot to be very accessible to the audience, sometimes these chats get very technical…which is fine for people like me who have an interest in the flat earth conversations…but for many people it’s get too full of jargon and you just get two parties saying the same thing over and over again claiming they have the truth and the other person is wrong…I am wondering…and I’m happy to take some advice here…if we could find a moot that was easily understandable by most of the audience, for you and your fellow debater to anchor your message to…doesn’t mean other issues and conversations can’t come up…but if we start by anchoring the chat to the moot…I wonder if it will appeal to more people and both sides will be able to get their message to new audiences. If you have any suggestions let me know…something simple and easily understandable to all.
I have a large following on iTunes for my audio podcast and on my mainstream media platform for the video but I have not given a lot of attention to Youtube so I don’t yet have the 1000 subscribers to enable superchats, I will aim to boost my numbers before the conversation to help us get questions from the audience, but if that can’t happen then we’ll just take questions from the general chat
Thanks Nathan, appreciate your involvement
Sincerely
Pat Brittenden
Dear Pat
This guy? https://youtu.be/mI8_TH5P4u4
Sure our paths have crossed, I’m waiting on:
R
Evidence of a visible new moon transit
Without R (measured earth radius) all of his arguments fail as they are all based on this debunked value.
There is no point covering ground with a person who has already failed to support the claims they have made and continue to make after they have been refuted.
If you can establish that Mr Catz (I am 40 and go by Nathan) will not be utilising this debunked R value, I will be happy to attend a debate with him. If not the meeting will be short.
“Do you have R measurements Catz?” (All current R claims have been debunked)
“No” or “Yes” (presentation of a claim I have already refuted)
“Then none of your measurements and claims for a globe work without R”
Seems very boring to me. Could you not find someone that I have not already taken 100% of their claims apart already?
Look forward to hearing from you again soon.
Yours sincerely
Nathan
Sorry, just so I am clear, are u saying u need an assurance that Catz won’t be using the debunked r value or your not interested? Is that correct?
I guess the problem with that demand is that no matter what Catz says he will, or won’t do, what’s to stop him bringing it up during the debate.
It seems to me if we come up with a moot that steers away from the need for the use of the R value, then Catz can’t use it in the debate. Would that suffice?
As the flat earth expert, maybe you could suggest a moot that would do that.
I’m happy to ask Catz that, but I don’t want to then set up this debate to have him go back against his word (if he did…not saying he will) then have you bail.
The alternative is that maybe you could suggest someone you’d love to debate to make it more exciting for you.
Happy to hear your thoughts.
Pat
Dear Pat
Thanks for your reply. I have no desire to put in any restrictions however in previous encounters with Mr “Catz” he ignores / refuses to give concessions when he is proven wrong.
I have seen 20, 30 repetitions of the same point he can not overcome put to him without concession. (Happy to provide video examples if required).
I personally have asked him (as have many others) how we can have gas pressure without a container, he dodged this question in excess of 80 times when conversing with me in the past. I have the screen shots if you want the exact number of repetitions of the same question he dodged to avoid concessions having to be made.
The point is Catz (the kind of name a teenager gives them self) is intellectually dishonest and I prefer not to willingly give up my time for people who behave in that way. It is know as “zealotry”.
I use R as an example as it was detailed at the start of the video I shared with you.
Noted in the video as a comment from me, never overcome or refuted, proven or (more importantly) conceded!
Would it be possible to get a real person, with a real name, perhaps some stake in what they claim? Rather than a person who goes by “Catz” who’s only interest is making anti-FE videos that do not address the arguments we put forward.
An “expert” on the globe rather than an anti FE zealot would be fantastic.
I look forward to hearing from you again soon.
Yours sincerely
Nathan Oakley
hey man
so it would seem a debate between you an Catz won’t be happening, you have to appreciate for someone like me…and my audience…what you say is your position and what he says is his position…if you’re saying he either has to agree with you or concede to one of your points that he doesn’t agree with then there is never going to be an accord.
I have watched a lot of these debates, and I have seen your live show a few times, but as someone (like most of the world) who accepts the globe model I am still open to hearing the evidence for the opposing view…I always go into these conversations with the idea that my mind may be changed and i am open to that. This is what most of my audience would be as well…but as an example, you ask for the answer to the question about container and gas pressure and I accept the answer that the globe believers offer of the pressure getting smaller and smaller as we go higher until there is somewhat of a zero balance and the difference in pressure between “space” and “not space” is negligible (my unscientific paraphrase). Now I accept I may be wrong in this, but if you are not willing to come and debate unless your proposed opponent agrees to what you are saying then it’s (a) not going to happen and (b) not the way to set up a debate i.e. with conditions to the opposing view needed to concede before we even start.
My audience is vast, as I said I am platformed on a site that gets a million views a day so many, many eyes will see it….I would hope that you could see it as an opportunity to share your evidence, proof and belief to a wider audience, rather than not want to participate due to an unrealistic concession you want in place before we even begin.
In saying that, obviously, you don’t need to come on…I’m not looking at twisting your arm…just making my position clear that we’d love to have you on…you will get tons of space and time to put forward your case…as will Catz…and you have the opportunity to influence a ton of people no matter what your opponent does or says.
My style is not combative, it’s calm and relaxed and looking to understand why people believe what they believe. What I would want is you to put forward your evidence and not worry about what Catz says or does…your evidence should be foremost in thinking about educating people in their understanding.
For now I’ll take this as you declining, I’d be more than happy to have you on and you’ll have time to respond if you want to…but thanks anyways…and if you are still keen as you seemed to be at the start before I introduced Catz as a possibility then just let me know asap as I will now begin the hunt for another flat earther
Cheers then
![🙂]()
Pat
Dear Pat
I explain that I have already debated the person you lined up and in debate the person refused to concede points resulting in 80+ repetitions of the same point (I offered to give you examples) and you are going to take that as me “declining”. Wtf
I see, can I take this email to mean that you prefer sleeping with the dead. Rather than you liking second law of thermodynamics violations?? I’ll take your gas gets thinner and becomes a vacuum because you believe you live on a model (Reification fallacy) to mean you like sleeping with the dead, seems reasonable by your standards. Far easier to ignore me and substitute a new version of events, like Catz. Ignore the argument and focus on my ability as a father
I prefer people address the points I make, like Catz it would seem you would rather replace my objection with you own fantasy, do you often make up a new narrative when things don’t go your way?
I will explain that you to my followers that you were arrested, for sleeping with the dead, like you, I can make up random crap, that in no way relates to what was said too.
So “an expert rather than a zeolite” is me declining is it?
Gas gets thinner and eventually stops filling space (second law of thermodynamics violation) = you like dead people as lovers.
You and Catz will get on like a house on fire!
Yours sincerely
Nathan Oakley
dude, what the probs here? why so aggressive? one comes to a debate with their points…they make their points…they move on
I don’t know what you have done before with these people but you win a debate by arguing the best points…not insisting the other party answer your points. I thought you would have understood debating better as your channel claims to be a debate page.
I take it that you are declining because you said you would not participate unless Catz agreed to your conditions, Catz didn’t thus you declined. I didn’t “ignore your argument” I invited you to participate in a large scale debate…I haven’t even considered your argument…I’m neither debating you, nor am I thinking about the outcome of said debate before the debate happens.
If you don’t feel you can come up to the plate and put forward a case to win a debate, and in turn educate people like me who are not neck deep in this stuff like you are, then fine. Some of the stuff you just wrote to me doesn’t even make sense “I will explain that you to my followers that you were arrested, for sleeping with the dead, like you, I can make up random crap, that in no way relates to what was said too.” this sentence isn’t even close to being grammatically correct so I genuinely have no idea what you are saying.
And finally, if I am wrong, and you are not declining…then when are you available to do the debate? Lets book in a time and get it done.
Cheers Nathan
Dear Pat
My name is Nathan, not dogz or “dude”! When a person I’m conversing with makes up a little story about me I will make it clear that person is being unreasonable with a nice overt example that mirrors the same behaviour. If you still wish to “take this as you declining” then perhaps my comparison didn’t make the point clear enough?! Perhaps (again) you could acknowledge the point rather than asking about my level of aggression (a mirror to the lie you planned on telling) I see this lie as aggressive and responded in kind. I highly doubt this aggression you have taken with me by threats of lies will ever be addressed, perhaps even if I highlighted it with examples 80 times, who knows?!
Some people are simply unreasonable, and when they have their own actions mirrored they ask “why the aggression dude”?
I agree that arguments are won with the best points, unless they get repeated 80 times without concession (my original objection) however this was ignored and a little narrative was formed by you that better suited this obstacle you now face with your choice of opponent, maybe take this to mean I am too busy or some other crap you decide to invent, only to be shocked that the story displeased the person you planned to lie about.
“I thought you would understand that” <— this is a personal attack, clearly too stupid to realise why you are getting aggression as a reply.
I thought you were smart enough to realise no point is won if it’s repeated 80 times and avoided, hand waved, and lied about. Obviously my objection about intellectual honesty has also been dutifully ignored in your reply, again in favour of your new narrative “I take it that you are declining because you said…” (gives details of a CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE) “unless cats agreed to your conditions” <— so I’m NOT DECLINING!!! In actual fact “cats didn’t” so “thus you declined” <— are you retarded??! CATS (the name a teenage boy gives themselves) DECLINED MY TERMS!!!!
Do not under any circumstances LIE about what I have declined! Do you understand me you brain dead idiot!
Cats declined my terms, if you “take this to mean” anything other than CATZ DECLINED! Then you will be met with anger BECAUSE ITS A LIE!
Seems pretty clear who’s side you are on and how willing you are to lie. “I didn’t ignore your argument” so…80 repeated points avoided was addressed no, you ignored my objection and decided you would take Catz decision to not meet my terms “to mean” Nathan’s *conditional acceptance* was a response to decline. I asked if you could find an “expert” again this point has been ignored. Did this ignored request get “taken as” something other than another point you have ignored or me declining or is Catz the high-school teacher a “heliocentric expert” last I checked he targets children with his rhetoric, hence the catchy name. Can I look up “Conspiracy Catz“ education or isn’t that a name I can research, I thought you’d be up to finding an “expert” given the number of people you cater to. Clearly a second rate high school teacher is good enough for you and your very low standards (fun reading personal attacks about what you do eh ) I expected far better, you just aren’t up to the task of finding an expert who deals with adults. (second time asking as it was ignored then lied about by you). Step up to the plate, don’t run away like a coward telling lies about what happened here, step up to the plate and get a decent globe expert. They should be 10 a penny! I’m the one in the minority here dumbo, how hard can it be. I doubt you are up to the task.
“If you don’t feel you can come up to the plate” <— personal attack number 2
“I take” your stupidity “to mean” you never get laid. Fun (how’s that mirror looking) “why the aggression dude?” “I have no idea what you are saying” yep, “I take that to mean” you are too stupid to realise a mirror is being help up to the little story you made up about me declining after Catz declined my terms and I requested a “globe expert”.
If you manage to actually address ANY of the objections, realise that you are attempting to sweet talk me (thanks for the personal attacks) and attempt to appear impartial, feel free to drop me a line, it better start with an apology for the lie you planned on telling about my conditional acceptance and *Catz refusal* to meet my terms.
As before (so you don’t “take it” you can lie a third time) I’ll be perfectly blunt given how stupid you demonstrate yourself to be, I will even use smaller words so that the grammar isn’t too confusing for you…
MY TERMS WHICH WERE DECLINED BY CATZ ARE NOT TO BE “TAKEN AS” ME DECLINING TO DEBATE!!!
I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR NOW!
I look forward to receiving your apology and address to the concerns I have now raised on multiple occasions and you merely addressed with personal attacks, in the near future.
Your sincerely
Nathan Oakley
P.S. if this email had too many word for you to comprehend the objections you failed to address and I have raised on several occasions, I can summarise them again with subheadings to make them less easy to claim you didn’t ignore them. (Three renditions so far, I got to 80 with catz) perhaps stepping up to the plate regarding how these points DO NOT GET WON is something I could only expect from someone more intelligent and with less bias than you given you have ignored this objection several times, then lied about it.
P.P.S. please do not take the words in this email “to mean” anything beyond what they actually state.
Ok, so this is all very simple. Would you like to come and debate Catz on my podcast?
For clarity there are no conditions that either party can demand, this is my debate and I make the rules.
Either way I wish you the best, but would you like to accept my invitation or, understanding how I am setting up this debate, are you declining?
Happy days
Dear Pat
True to form you have ignored every single objection I have raised! Clearly you are not a reasonable man to work with and you are incapable of finding an expert to debate me, settling for a high school teacher I have already beaten who needs 80 repetitions of the same point put to him so that the point made IS WON (4 times pointing this out to you so far Pat, will you get to 80 too?).
The majority of the western world believes the same as YOU & YOUR GUEST, making you biased, as you admitted. Given this is the case I would expect you to go out of your way to make the experience fair. Instead you ignored concerns raised and sided with the person your bias lies with for reasons of ease.
You have already explained that CATZ DIDNT MEET MY TERMS!! So, find a different guest, if you are up to it, if not I will explain that you failed to address my concerns and instead chose to throw your weight around. “My debate my rules” wow, how very appealing given your bias and failures so far.
Your debate, your bias, your ignorance of the issues raised about your POTENTIAL guest (7 billion to choose from) as stated, I am in the minority (not Catz) and you have the same exact view as that guest. So a put up with it attitude won’t fly with me, I have objections, deal with them (if you are capable)!
Address the concerns I have with Catz and I will debate him, he already refused, not to be taken *me* declining! An issue (lie) you have yet to apologise for and I demanded of you! So… lie, say I declined (after raising objections you failed to overcome) find an unsuspecting FE guest from the minority side, which you are def not on, who can deal with the issues I raised about Catz (and you ignored) on the fly. Because that’s totally fair now you are aware of the issues eh (sarcasm in case I used too many words again).
Please address the concerns I have raised:
Given you ignored every point I have raised as an objection I suspect you will find a way to work with a person who’s issues have been made clear and is one of the *millions* of other Globe believers out there to choose from, drop the minority debater in favour of somebody who hasn’t encountered Catz and his behaviour before, obviously Catz, being on your side and in the majority, needs all the help he can get
I look forward to your reply (not to be taken as me declining, the lie told and you didn’t address).
Yours sincerely
Nathan Oakley
For clarity, and I may has not been clear. Catz didn’t decline your terms…I mentioned your terms to him but as the host of the debate I am not prepared to have you, or him, make and demands pre debate.
So it’s not correct to say he declined ur terms, I probably wasn’t clear about that…my miscommunication and being lazy in an email for brevity.
I am a journalist with 20 years experience in news and current events so my globe bias is neither here nor there as there will always be a position that more aligns with me. I am about getting content out there in a fair way to all parties in a robust and enjoyable conversation.
So that’s that. My debate, my rules, no conditions…fairness to all, no weighting from me to either argument just time for you to share your thoughts and argue to the moot (which will probably be something like ‘the earth is flat and stationary’ or something similar.
I don’t want to do any more too-ing and fro-ing. You’ll need to trust that you’ll get a fair crack…which you will…you’ll need to decide if you want to participate based on my conditions as it’s my debate. Just like you set your rules (ie no swearing) on your channel.
Either way thanks Nathan, are you in or are you out?
Dear Pat
I’ll trust you will never actually address my concerns.
Just babbling (again) about yourself and how popular you are…
You think your bias won’t effect me when IT ALREADY HAS!!!
…you’d think a man with 20 years experience could get a globe expert rather than a man with the name a kid gives themselves. <— yet another ignored objection, did 20 years not teach you how to go over a person’s points and actually address them.
You covered nothing and told me how great you are. Useless! Confirming your bias then telling me how fair you are! Unbelievable!
Catz does not acknowledge points made in debate, in the past he required 80 repetitions of the exact same point (this is the 5th time you have ignored this objection).
Get an expert, not a man who deals with children and has a child’s name, it’s insulting! I’d like to be able to research my opponent (3rd time with this objection) Conspiracy Catz is not a name that I can research, is the name a twat gives themselves.
If you can’t get a reasonable guest to face me and go for the first twat that spends his time chasing me with his fake name and ignorance of my points (will Pat hit 80???) then you are lazy!
I don’t need to know what you do, you have a real name I can research!
If you were “people dogz” I wouldn’t have responded to you!
Sort this out, I’m sure you have it in you to get an “expert”!…..or maybe you fold when something is too hard and just saying “look I’m really popular and yes I’m on the same side as the cartoon I have lined up but that doesn’t mean I’m not fair”
Don’t give me your CV, just get an expert!
Yours sincerely
Nathan Oakley
thanks anyways Nathan, I’ll let Catz know you have declined my invitation
as an aside, according to Catz you and he have never actually officially debated…but that’s neither here nor there
all the best, go well with you ‘debate’ channel…hope you host lots of people whom are allowed to get you to bow to their demands before they come on
bless
![🙂]()
Dear Pat
Lie about me and we will have an actual issue! “I’ll let Catz know you declined my invitation (lie)”. How’s that expert coming, observably you justified Catz expert level and accreditation’s to over come this objection….. nope, you are instead making threats to lie to the person I have debated in the past (happy to provide links as offered in respect to my 80 repetitions of objections you keep ignoring).
Looks like the lies keep on coming, perhaps you are taking an intellectually dishonest man at his word (another unaddressed issue) rather than doing some research about who I have debated. Perhaps you view your show as “official” and anything less isn’t an actual debate
I have raised several issues and you have in no way addressed any of them, by sheer coincidence another person who (like me) who has debated Catz (more lies or just too lazy to research who I have debated) detailed some of the exact same issues I raised (and you ignored x6 for you x80 for Catz) on my show today.
I’ll pop you in the title and share the link with you once it’s published tomorrow so you can get a better idea of the issues I am trying desperately to communicate with you in the face of constant lies that I have declined something I have offered a conditional acceptance for.
As per my last email, please can you actually address the issues I have raised, I did offer to give them sub headings, not thinking this sarcasm would actually need to be done.
Yours sincerely
Nathan Oakley
Maybe u should have me on ur show to explain to me why your so wronged. Happy to connect with u one on one but as ur debate show is on at 1am our time I won’t be jumping in and joining up. Let me know if you want to otherwise I look forward to ur chat about how terrible Catz is and what a fool I am
Bless.
Dear Pat
Here is the video discussion – https://youtu.be/PleIX3LSazE
It’s released in 24hs but there is a preview you can watch now.
Regards
Nathan
Would u like the Vance to explain ur concerns to me one on one or not? I am free the next 2 or 3 hours if you want to Zoom
No worries either way.
Dear Pat
I have taken time out of my day to detail my concerns, on multiple occasions!
You failed to address any of them and chose to lie about my conditional ACCEPTANCE perhaps you could let me know your response to the concerns I have raised! Perhaps you could apologise for the lies you planned on telling about me!
Perhaps you could find an expert to face me (3rd time) rather than one of the 7 billion wankers out there who like to call themselves “experts” despite universities pumping out accreditation for this subject year in year out.
Would details of the same things AGAIN verbally get an address from you? I tend to find people who ignore me in writing don’t do any better in person. Answer my concerns via email, it may take you some effort to go through them and address them rather than speaking to me about how wonderful you are while ignoring multiple repetitions of the same objections you have failed to address so far…..obviously you found it easier to make up a story (no apology thus far).
I have 6 years experience dealing with wankers, you have 20 years experience blowing your own trumpet it seems because overcoming guests concerns is definitely not a skill you have.
I look forward to your detailed reply overcoming the objections I have raised. Then we can chat on the phone, Skype or whatever once I’m confident that the biased host who wants my time (and has had a lot already) shows he is trustworthy.
So far you have proven to be a liar, just like the guest you want to line up!
Yours sincerely
Nathan Oakley
P.S. communication demands made of a man you lied to based on your schedule don’t go over very well.
P.P.S. As detailed in my last email, another person who faced Catz detailed their experience with me on my show, you got a mention https://youtu.be/PleIX3LSazE
Obviously you didn’t acknowledge this in any way in your latest reply.
Dearest Nathan,
You seem confused there was no ‘conditional acceptance’ or coming on the debate, 7 minutes after i emailed you a polite invitation you responded “Thanks for your email. Count me in, let me know when you have an opponent”
It seems you were very keen, jumped at the opportunity in fact, until you saw that Catz was the opponent. Now this is of course fine, no one is forcing you to debate, if you don’t want to senate Catz it’s all good.
I haven’t addressed any of your so-called concerns because they are of no significance to me, as I have said to you before, much like you run your room…my debate my conditions…if you want to come debate under my terms and conditions you would be welcome, if you don’t no worries. You seem hell bent on making sure I know you haven’t declined. I have made the invitation several times and you have responded several times insisting that you would participate under your conditions which I have said aren’t applicable…you don’t want to come debate under my terms and conditions = you declining my invitation…no worries.
I was open to you still being on, but since my invitation you have called me an idiot, questioned my professionalism, literally screamed at me in all caps, something about sleeping with dead people, called me ignorant…brain dead, a liar and many more…and now I have your supporters emailing me as well…to be honest I don’t know if i could give you a fair go…I think it’s only human that once one receives a torrent of abuse from someone there is the chance of it souring any potential relationship…but if you have any interest still…and I’ll say again you don’t have to accept my offer…then I think the only way we could move forward and firstly bury the hatchet is with a one on one chat…then you could explain your concerns…and I could address what I thought was relevant if anything…and if not you could still then decide not to participate.
This whole thing is all very very strange my friend. I wonder why you are still emailing me, I wonder…if I am so stupid and Catz is such a lowly opponent you don’t want to debate him the again…fine…no worries, I am already talking to 4 other flat earthers, I would have liked to have you on…but I don’t need to have you on…you’re easily replaceable…stress less brother.
Anywho, if you want to have a chat, like men, and see if we can come to an accord I’m fine with a quick Zoom, if you don’t then I’ll accept that you don’t want to come on my debate, under my conditions…look if you are worried about losing face it’s perfectly reasonable to say “I wouldn’t go on his debate as I didn’t like his conditions”…completely fair and accurate…but to say that you are accepting under your conditions is nonsense…and I think you know that.
If you genuinely are unclear, think of it this way…
Hey Nathan want to come to my place for dinner
Yes Pat I’d love to come, count me in
Cool we’re having roast lamb
Pat I’d like you to cook chicken noodles instead
Um no Nathan, we’re having roast lamb, you’re welcome to come and eat with us
I’d love to have roast lamb but only if it’s chicken noodles
Oh, so you don’t want come to my house for a roast lamb dinner
I did not say that, don’t lie about me, I said I would come for a roast lamb dinner under certain conditions
You’re too smart to not see this, so if you say you don’t I think you’re being disingenuous
I won’t be responding to any more of your emails, unless they are to try to organise a time to catch up…which I am still open to
Bless
![🙂]()
Dear Pat
“ I haven’t addressed any of your so-called concerns” hand wave dismissal (and insult) of my concerns regarding 80 repetitions of a point not being a “debate” nor being “fair” or 6 times putting this to you makes you seem like a CUNT (all caps for extra effect)
The above point was also detailed by a third party in the video I sent you. My concern is undressed and labelled a “so called concern”.
“I take it that you are declining because you said you would not participate” <— a lie told by a cunt! My actual reply “ I will be happy to attend a debate with him. If not the meeting will be short.” <— can you read that lying cunt! Out loud, then call yourself a “lying cunt” because you are!
“ The alternative is that maybe you could suggest someone you’d love to debate to make it more exciting for you. ” I suggested “an expert” taken as me declining because of your bias toward one of 7 billion who think they are on a globe, some of whom have actual accreditation for those views, rather than a cartoon named, ex school teacher (not a globe expert) who requires 80 repetitions of a point he dodged with both myself and a third party.
Obviously if this happened on your show it would be deemed as me seeking an “unrealistic concession” <— biased much!? And if I pointed out that the same question has been repeated into the triple digits it would be ignored on your show the same as it has been ignored here. Pretty clear how you view this discussion and you are in no way assuring the minority “expert” (that would be me) that your bias will not shine like it is already, perhaps this new concern is merely a “so called” concern because you have no humility and ARE incapable of addressing them, not while retaining Catz, who you have clearly taken a shine to.
I, on the other hand am ruthless, and considered “the expert” in my field by you and others. Obviously you didn’t research me or you’d know what you were in for! Lazy unprofessional lying cunt! I say it like it is!
So, cunt, I have not declined, I asked for an expert, hop to it you lazy shit!
As you are still attempting to lie about the circumstances here and it’s very much in the open that I DO WANT TO DEBATE, just not a cartoon character who ignored 80 repetitions (x7), and after being asked, by you, I suggested you get an expert, is that beyond your ability after 20 years?! Easier to lie and say I declined, eh cunt!
So in conclusion, get an expert. If you need help figuring out what an “expert” in the globe is, I’m sure I can help you figure it out. Just a hint CONSPIRACY CATZ IS NOT AN EXPERT. Just one of millions of self appointed “experts” who like to make videos about their faith, which is the same as everyone else’s. Not special, not an expert, wasn’t worth my time when I debated him before, wasn’t worth Tommy’s time when he debated him and NO THIS IS NOT ME DECLINING YOU LYING CUNT! This is me answering your question “ The alternative is that maybe you could suggest someone you’d love to debate to make it more exciting for you. ”….so I can lie and demand you take Catz or I will say you declined, regardless of your suggestions to “get a fucking expert lying cunt” & “ I will be happy to **attend** a debate with him. If not the meeting will be short.” <— taken as “= declining” according to a lying cunt! That’s you Pat, the lying cunt in all of this. A point that will be made clear and public by me should you publicise this lie you keep posing.
Now, once you apologise for your lies, I will bury the hatchet and treat you like a man, until then I will talk to you like the lying cunt you are! Make no mistake! So, do you understand what you need to do:
Be publicly branded a lazy, unprofessional, biased, lying cunt (plenty of evidence) or
Get an expert to debate me (after I kindly answered your request for suggestions)
^^ DO NOT “TAKE THIS” as anything other than what it actually says!
Simple stuff, now get on with it and stop trying to lie about me!
I await your disappointing reply with zero address to my concerns or apologies for the lies you have attempted to conjure or acknowledgment of my suggestion to get an expert.
Yours sincerely
Nathan Oakley
So that’s everything…I am a little embarrassed that upon posting this I realise it’s so long, if you got all the way through it congrats…you’re a legend…now you can make up your own mind who is being reasonable…and who is not.
