you refuse to tell us

Neil, I did tell you. The first time you asked.

So stop bombing my site with spam. Read what I said. Follow the link I supplied. Read what is said there.

Respond to what I actually said.

Stop making things up that I didn’t say. Stop ignoring what I did say.

And if you have a correction to offer, present an actual thing: quote the erroneous statement, and present evidence (not opinions, evidence) that it is in error. And if that checks out I’ll correct it.

Otherwise, what are you doing? Dozens and dozens of spam comments. And still no examples? Ask yourself what is going on here. Honestly. Because this isn’t rational, Neil. It is a problem. And I’m not the problem here.

Neil, you are the one behaving like a child here. So resorting to “you are behaving like a child” amidst this emotional bender you are on is quite rich.

Yes, Neil, dozens of comments repeating the same questions and assertions. No evidence. No examples.

That’s what’s happening here. That you don’t see it worries me. But there is nothing I can do to fix your failure-mode.

Neil, you have not identified a single actual mistake I made.

You have bloviated and bombed my site with repetitive questions, but not a single example of any actual error to correct.

The latter would indeed be productive and lead to a revision or note, if it checks out. But you are at dozens of spam comments now and not a single example yet.

And that is disturbing. You need to take a hard look at yourself and how you are behaving here.

Neil is flooding my blog with dozens of comments, it seems in the hopes of obscuring the fact that I already answered these questions the first time.

My answer is here. I keep linking to it to try and prevent his tactic of trying to hide it by constantly falsely claiming I didn’t answer the question and repetitively re-asking it.

In-context, I answered that I checked “several” of Salm’s claims. Then I linked to my discussion (of why I don’t bother deep-diving any others) that was always here in the original article (which Neil keeps ignoring). That is here.

Salm makes hundreds of claims. But they are all basically the same claim. It does not matter if you give a hundred different examples of the same fallacy. The fallacy is the same. Hence, I explained what someone needs to do if they think there is some exception, some thing Salm said somewhere, that is not already refuted by my points there linked—which appears before the section when I name Salm, so I am starting to suspect Neil did not read my article but only rage-skimmed it for Salm’s name and flipped tables at what I said there, not realizing I already covered my reasons for that conclusion earlier, where I named and linked to Davis, a critic who makes more competent arguments than Salm (Salm is a straw man, Davis the steel man).

So rather than constantly falsely claim I did not already cover this, Neil needs to find a counter-example, some thing Salm said that is not refuted by one or more of the many reasons I gave for why critics aren’t making any valid points. Maybe I missed one. But, you have to present it. If you can’t, then it’s simply dishonest to keep insisting you know there is one. And if you do present one, then we can get a decent discussion going. Neil seems wholly uninterested in that. He’s just getting emotional, and thereby ceasing to be reasonable. Exactly as he did when I caught Tuccinardi at this. He doesn’t like when I criticize people he likes. And he can’t handle even the mildest and most trivial criticism of himself.

Remember, this all started from me merely saying Neil places “some excess trust” (just some) in Salm because “I personally” (personally, me, just me) “find Salm shady and untrustworthy.” That’s literally all I said. I never challenged any specific thing Neil ever said anywhere. So his reaction to this is wildly out of proportion to what happened. And he is completely ignoring what I actually already said about critics of Nazareth historicity, and accordingly, never says any specific thing challenging anything I actually did say. He just keeps insisting I missed something. Something Neil can’t find so as to present to me.

He needs to calm down and rethink his tirade and tactics. And get back to doing what reasonable scholars do: carry an argument, with actual pertinent examples; not gainsaying and rhetoric. He needs to pay attention to what I actually did (and did not) say, not attribute things to me I didn’t say, or ignore things I did say; and thereby respond to my actual argument with actual, pertinent examples. He isn’t doing that. But that’s on him. There isn’t anything more I can do.

Dear Dr. Carrier, which post to you refer to when you say you have replied to Godfrey’s question “have you read Salm’s responses and his argument and evidence?” and his statement “You respond to Salm’s and marik’s statements negatively without digging a little to check their claims.” I do not doubt your scholarly integrity, but it seems Godfrey needs a more direct answer.

What are you talking like this to me? Why can’t you just admit you made a mistake and let’s move on? Why did you turn so hostile against me — you never even read the posts I was writing about your Bayes argument.

Er, no, Richard. Not repeated at all. You obviously assume that without Don’t assert — Quote the repetition! —

What a childish response. How old are you?

So you are too afraid to read comments now lest they show to you how shallow you are?

In other words you have not bothered to even read Salm’s work!!!

I had initially ventured to disagree with you in civility and good faith. You have not replied in kind.

I don’t believe you even bother to read my comments because even when I say entirely different things you stupidly assert I am a “broken record”.

Understood. You are a scholarly fraud who needs to keep debating fundies and other low-hanging fruit to make your living.

P.S . — I now understand why people write to me complaining about you — I had no idea how bad their experiences really were until I attempted to engage you in this thread. You are talking to a high distinction post grad and one engaged in a masters program — but you need to patronize or abuse anyone who tries to engage in serious debate with you. You really have made yourself a laughing stock and now I know why.