I had the pleasure of reading through many, though I confess not all, of the posts on your blog (Liver and Onions) - an enormous percentage of which relate to Calvinism, apparently from a less-than-favorable George Bryson-esque perspective.
I notice that in your most recent post you go after Calvinist apologists. As a Calvinist apologist, I didn't find the portrait particularly compelling - but then I'm clearly biased. I'd like the chance to demonstrate which of those characterizations are true, which are meaningless, and which are incorrect.
So, if you have interest, perhaps we could explore one issue that you believe particularly highlights the weakness/heresy/what-have-you of Calvinism.
If it is hard for you to pick something, perhaps we could focus on your June 30, 2007, post in which you suggest that the great Reformer Jerome Zanchius was a child of the devil because of his comments on election and reprobation.
You would take the affirmative position that Zanchius' following statement contains heresy:
As the future faith and good works of the Elect were not the cause of their being chosen, so neither were the future sins of the reprobate the cause of their being passed by, but both the choice of the former and the decretive omission of the latter were owing, merely and entirely, to the sovereign will and determinating pleasure of God.
But perhaps you have a better suggestion.
I have a debate blog set up where we could conduct this debate in a formalized manner. At the moment I'm wrapping up a debate on Sola Scriptura with an Eastern Orthodox opponent, but I'd be happy to find time to accommodate an edifying debate with you on a Calvinism topic of your choosing.
Please don't leave me hanging.