here are comments from NG's blog

[Secret Alias]

Why is there an expectation of 'fairness' in a universe where an expectation for objectivity has been abandoned? Why is it Ehrman 'discredited' by his oversights and shortcoming but not so for the soldiers who dutifully labor for the death and destruction of God and religion? Who makes these rules? How did Neil end up as participant and referee? This is silly. Stephen and I have no great love for one another. But (speaking only for myself here) I engaged with him in the past under the presumption (rightly or wrongly) that if he or I made some outstanding point or other about this or that that one of us would have enough objectivity to register it. The idea that Ehrman is to be ignored for not paying close enough attention to his footnotes in a non-academic book but a similar rule doesn't apply for Neil is ridiculous. I'd say something like 'he who casts the first stone' but then again that story was all 'myth' so we can ignore it's import I guess.

[Secret Alias]

And I divide my time between this place and Twitter where I see a similar "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. I can't excuse ANYONE who embraces Pete the mountainman FOR ANY REASON. Even the 'intellectual exercise' excuse is untenable. He's just so bad and disgraceful.

And I don't think it's Neil really. It's this new anonymous universe where you can 'hit' people on the internet. Pete doesn't have to worry about running into any of the people he foists this ridiculous 4th century conspiracy theory on to. They're just anonymous 'trolls' or 'bots' or whatever. I'd argue this lack of objectivity argument is just an internet thing. If you went to the grocery store and the price for milk fluctuated to whatever the store keeper 'decided' on that day (because there 'is no price for milk' in a universe with no fairness or objectivity) the grocery store would have no customers. The same with the gas station which didn't establish a 'price' for gas etc.

A lot of these abstract philosophical arguments that 'objectivity' doesn't exist only exist in this artificial internet world. If you met a jackass telling you he didn't have to be objective or that objectivity doesn't exist so I am going to be an asshole in the real world you'd either ignore him or punch him in the face. That's why these things don't happen in the real world.

[neilgodfrey]

Why is there an expectation of 'fairness' in a universe where an expectation for objectivity has been abandoned? Why is it Ehrman 'discredited' by his oversights and shortcoming but not so for the soldiers who dutifully labor for the death and destruction of God and religion? Who makes these rules? How did Neil end up as participant and referee? This is silly. Stephen and I have no great love for one another. But (speaking only for myself here) I engaged with him in the past under the presumption (rightly or wrongly) that if he or I made some outstanding point or other about this or that that one of us would have enough objectivity to register it. The idea that Ehrman is to be ignored for not paying close enough attention to his footnotes in a non-academic book but a similar rule doesn't apply for Neil is ridiculous. I'd say something like 'he who casts the first stone' but then again that story was all 'myth' so we can ignore it's import I guess.

This thread is an attempt to smear me with what Stephen Goranson has now admitted was false information -- that he lied.

If you, Stephan, want to address my comments that belong on another thread then do so there. You have continued to slanderously misrepresent what i have said both about the nature of objectivity and Bart Ehrman himself.

You and Stephen Goranson are both clearly on a malicious vendetta to smear, misrepresent and slander me whenever you think you can.

(and SG has even admitted he started this thread with by lying that I took down his comments from my blog).

I want an apology from Stephen for lying in an effort to smear me with this thread -

-- and I want you, Huller, to address my words in the appropriate thread instead of repeating outrageous mind-reading slanderous falsehoods about what I have written here.

[John T]

On a personal level, I have noted that Neil has deleted entire posts that were nothing more than ad hominem, smart-alleck comments directed at me. However, he never once offered an apology, ever!

Editing typos or correcting for grammar is one thing but Neil never, ever apologizes for his ugly personal attacks because someone had the audacity to point out his sophistry.

[John T]

My rule of thumb is: Edit and correct for grammar/clarity in a timely manner, but once someone else responds, it should stand as is.

I have deleted accidental double posts of mine (haven't we all?) but deleting an entire post just because you were proven wrong and want to destroy the evidence, well that should tell you something about the lack of integrity of that person.

[Sinouhe]

Im new here so i can be wrong but for some weeks now, this board looks like a tv reality show

[Secret Alias]

The point again for me is that the internet is a parallel universe where humans don't obliged to treat each other with courtesy. IMHO 'courtesy' is an extension of 'fairness' and when engaging in a discussion board 'fairness' is an extension of 'objectivity.' If 'objectivity' is beyond the reach of members there's no point in having the board. An alternative suggestion would be knives and clubs in an arena. Mythicism and historicism for instance would each arm themselves and the one that survives is the 'winner' determining for at least one year whether Jesus existed.

Dura Europos disproves a fourth century conspiracy theory? Settle it with a boxing match. That seems to be the direction things are heading.

[neilgodfrey]

The point again for me is that the internet is a parallel universe where humans don't obliged to treat each other with courtesy. IMHO 'courtesy' is an extension of 'fairness' and when engaging in a discussion board 'fairness' is an extension of 'objectivity.' If 'objectivity' is beyond the reach of members there's no point in having the board. An alternative suggestion would be knives and clubs in an arena. Mythicism and historicism for instance would each arm themselves and the one that survives is the 'winner' determining for at least one year whether Jesus existed.

Dura Europos disproves a fourth century conspiracy theory? Settle it with a boxing match. That seems to be the direction things are heading.

This is not the thread for you to continue to slander me with your misrepresentation that I do not believe in fairness -- discuss your disagreements with me in the appropriate threads.

This thread was posted by Stephen Garrison to discredit me and make me look like a dishonest coward. He has as good as admitted now that he was lying about what he saw on my blog.

Stephen, I expect an apology.

[Secret Alias]

Surely there are dishonest people. Many of my in-laws are dishonest. I have been dishonest. I would imagine - again given my presuppositions and low estimations of humans generally - that chances are if you are a human being you've been dishonest on occasion and likely aren't entirely honest most of the time. Not sure that pointing out dishonesty is slanderous. I kind of expect human beings to act 'as honest as possible' which in most cases isn't totally honest. The point of this forum was (again in my humble estimation to turn back the basic dishonesty of human intercourse generally) and strive together to find the truth. That's why I took issue with the 'objectivity' debate in the other thread.

I will give an example of my own dishonesty. I published a book that was terrible. The truth was that I wasn't qualified to write a book on early Christianity but (a) my Dad was dying (b) my Dad never really liked me that much (c) I wanted to show him that my brotlose Kunst wasn't a complete waste of time (d) they gave me a check for $10000. Also I was a new father and I wanted to put all of this behind me while I became a 'serious person.'

That's an absolutely honest confession of my own dishonesty (also they made me join forums like this to promote the book and I sometimes became a sock puppet to stir up 'discussion' for a stupid book). I do all of this because I thought the forum was different that ordinary human intercourse. We should try and be honest and 'objective' here. I have no interest in trashing you. None. I think you provide a service which is needed in the world. But here in the sacred halls of BC&H we should try and be 'unworldly' as possible and in fact strive for objectivity and work together for understanding. End of speech.

[neilgodfrey]

Get off this thread, Huller, and address your issues with me elsewhere. This is a thread initiated by Stephen Goranson in which he clearly lied to slander me.

Your own slanders against me -- "ally of evil", "not caring about truth", "lacking the pangs of conscience", "clandestine guerilla war" -- are for another place.