If Neil doesn’t know how to work WordPress, can we really trust him with a book?

Geesh. I did turn off Neil’s comments on Steph’s post, but I have not restricted him from post here like he claims. By claims, I intend to use that term LIEghtly. See, this is the same mode of attack that Neil and others have used in the past. They claim that we are restricting their attacks. Odd… he could have gone to any of my nearly 10000 pages and left a comment. Did he? No. He just claims that I’ve restricted his freedom of speech. I’ve let his little ‘buddy’ come over and play.

Some people….

You Might Also Like

21 Replies to “If Neil doesn’t know how to work WordPress, can we really trust him with a book?”

  1. Hmm. See anyone stopping him from screaming at the top of his lungs how oppressed and repressed he is?

    I didn’t think so.

    Posting on someone else’ blog is a privilege, not a right.

    Sometimes even I get censored. Not that I’m bitter or anything.

  2. Hi Joel — I have attempted several times to respond to some of your posts in the past but not a single one that I recall has ever passed your moderation. Maybe this comment here will be the first one you will allow through just to prove me a “liar”, yest?

    1. Ah, so for the first time Joel has let me post here. Perhaps Steph would like to address the quotation of Schweitzer that I referred to. It’s context was a two chapter discussion on mythicism. It’s context was not mirepresented by me in any of my comments.

      Steph also says that she uses my discussion of S’s words as an example of how “mythicists” misprepresent or lift quotes from their “historical contexts” — but the fact is that I am the only person I know who has ever used that quotation of S — and I have not used it to support mythicism!

      Ehrman quoted the words of S. that some mythicists have reportedly misrepresented – and they are only found, to my knowledge, in a discusson by R. Joseph Hoffmann in an introduction to a book by then mythicist G. A. Wells.

      Steph also avoids the many other historians I quote from that support the point S makes.

      1. Can my “it’s” above be corrected to “its” please?

        I trust no ridicule will be made of typos like this by Joel or Steph whose comments are riddled with egregious grammatical gaffes – to the point of near illiteracy in places.

      2. You realize, Neil, that if this was your first time, it would have been moderated, right? Say, don’t know much about WordPress?

        Neil, the only gaffe that I will ridicule is you….r ‘studies.’ I can’t call it scholarship, because it’s not.

        I’m just putting it out there that you are in fact a liar and a depraved individual who only knows how to insult. And lie.

        You can quote. Everyone can quote. Being a moron who can quote doesn’t mean that you get it right.

      1. Thankyou, Joel. So I stand corrected. You did let one comment of mine through, but no more.

        I seem to recall I regularly asked you for evidence to support your accusations. If you have evidence I lie then publish it.

        Yes, I have admitted to colourful descriptions of rude and abusive talk. Does that make me the insulter?

        Now, let’s put all this childishness and character attacks behind us and focus on the issues.

        Do tell me where I have mispresented Schweitzer or removed his words from his historical context? Steph avoided any reference to my actual quotation of Schweitzer, the context of those words I quoted (2 chapters on mythicism), and the supporting citations from other scholars, both before and after Schweitzer on method.

        And Joel, I am a human being, a fellow-creature. Why you have chosen from the get-go to abuse and attack me merely for thinking differently from you and others is a mystery to me.

        I made many attempts to reconcile with Steph, but was attacked each time in the end.

        Why is it that people like you and Steph cannot lay aside such hostility and engage with contrary views with common human civility?

        1. But no more? Oh? Proof?

          You are commenting now, aren’t you?

          The evidence is pointed out every time you comment. Plus, I’ve already shown that you have commented here before.

          Neil, I’m not sure you really are thinking different. I don’t think you are thinking at all. I’ve read your stuff on Steph, and their is no attempt to reconcile. Your bitterness and spite is too evident to be clouded over with some brief moment of false humility.

          What human civility do you have? You have, in your mind, created a giant conspiracy that either people give you a voice or they are oppressing you. Civility is only given to those who use it. I have yet to see you use it.

          1. Joel writes: “You have, in your mind, created a giant conspiracy that either people give you a voice or they are oppressing you.”

            I have? Where did I indicate any such things? I have never spoken of a conspiracy of any kind. I thought of being “oppressed” never crossed my mind. Why do you impute such thoughts to me?

            Are you really denying that you have refused to let any of my comments (except for just one) to be posted on your blog?

            I had forgotten you had let one of my comments through and I admitted I stood corrected. So for that I am somehow a “liar”???

            Joel Watts wrote: “Civility is only given to those who use it. I have yet to see you use it.”

            Yet when you do let a comment of mine through you say my civility is “false humility”.

            How can I win? Why do you presume to be able to read my mind and heart the way you do?

            Why can’t you simply address the substance of the issues raised? Why do you talk like this to me, a person whom you don’t even know?

  3. Joel old chap. I am a friendly bloke. I have tried on numerous occasions to ease the tension Steph has expressed towards me yet she continues to attack my character. And you do the same. Why?


    I really don’t understand.

    1. Oh? All you have to do is to read your take and tale on not being able to post here. How can anyone trust you?

      I’m on the road for the better part of the day so I’ll respond later this evening

  4. Joel, will you answer a direct question with a clear and unambiguous answer? Until this particular thread, you never let any but one of my posts through. Is that a fact or not?

    Are you able to declare with a straight face and all honesty that you have never blocked my comments from appearing on your blog?

  5. Joel, I think you failed to ready my question. I asked: “Until this particular thread, you never let any but one of my posts through. Is that a fact or not?”

    Are you really denying that you have banned my comments from your blog on all other occasions?

    I don’t care that you did ban my comments. I’m not going to scold you for it. I’m simply trying to understand what makes you tick. How will you answer this question? I really do not understand people who from the get-go attack others they don’t even know with such venom, even attacking their characters and presumed thoughts and motives.

      1. So you now say you haven’t banned me. Apart from one comment of mine, you just decided not to let through any of my past comments asking you to support your accusations and claims about me and what I had written.

        And now that this is an issue you can show that I am finally free to comment here so am not banned at all. Very clever.

        But why was I not allowed to place a comment defending myself on Steph’s post? You are a character, aren’t you, Joel.

        1. Neil, you have no proof of your accusations (which is, oddly, enough how you operate with nearly everything you put on the ‘net) and I have proof of mine… umm…

          I don’t control how my contributors do things.

          And you are a liar, aren’t you, Neil?

  6. Wow. I followed a link here from Godfrey’s blog. Joel, you really do not come off well here. When Neil says you do not reply directly to what he says, he’s got a point. Example: Neil says you only let one previous comment through. You respond that he’s lying because you did let one previous comment through. See the problem? No, probably not. You seem like a highly disagreeable chap! You might nto let this through, but at least you will have to read it. Neil scored on you here.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.