Adam

Seems like the time to ask you, Toto--
Do FRDB posts not get seen by google and indexed? I used to post on Theology Web and found my own articles coming up easily on Google search, and I think Christian Forums as well. FRDB seems more active than Theology Web. Is there policy here that hides our posts here? Or is Google's policy the problem?

Toto

Address this question to RayJ

Steven Carr

IS it true that behind his Paywall, Bart said he gets his graduate students to check the sources he references in his scholarly works, but in his popular writings, he does all the fact-checking himself?

That would explain the strange reference in 'Did Jesus Exist?' to Pliny's Letter number 10.

Bart didn't get one of his students to check out what he had written.

JonA

If it seems like he's trying to keep things exclusive, then he probably is.

It keeps out troublesome mythicists spammers and reduces the number of people Ehrman has to spend his time replying to.

Most academic work is not free; blogs usually are.

Ehrman's got a public section and a pay section; he's stretching a very weak and thin line.

I won't be joining.

Adam

In which he recommends installing Google Chrome. I did, and it crashed my computer. It cost me $120 to fix. Then after he's had you go through that trouble, he only accepts payment on PayPal, which I know is not very secure, but then turns around and says he accepts card payments also (maybe?). (Plus my account long ago got trapped in no-man's-land; it does not work, nor will it allow me to establish one anew because I already have one.)
His site requires a username and password. However, there are no accompanying fields in which to enter them.
I guess since he's not going to get your money, he's not worried about all the difficulties for anyone who wants to pay. All the better for keeping out unwanned troublemakers! Maybe only insiders are let in on the secret of how to pay and register without your computer crashing!

(I wasn't too worried about my reception there. It couldn't be worse than the abuse I've received here, I thought. But crashing my computer!)

jdl

I feel kind of bad for saying that. Obviously I was wrong.

Response to Carrier

[T2="w=80%;p=5;s=0;bdr=2,dotted,black"]A lot of people have been asking me when I will be replying to Richard Carrier’s full-frontal assault (!) on my book. I’ve started to reply in a couple of posts (maybe some haven’t noticed….), but I hope to have a fuller set of comments soon, on his charges of “Errors of Fact.” I know what I want to say, but am simply overwhelmed right now with other things to do. Long story, I won’t bore you with it. But I *hope* to have a fairly sizeable posting on the topic by Wednesday (I’m saying this here so I don’t need to reply individually to everyone who has asked). I have decided that I will post it on the Public Forum, since I really do take his charges of scholarly incompetence seriously and feel that I need to address them.[/T2]

Joseph

Adam

I posted to LOLquote of the day from Bart Ehrman Post #109 before I found this Post #26 here. But that all the more justifiies my post there because no one commented on the Response to Carrier that was here free to see.

Toto

The Response to Carrier was lame, and was noted in other threads.

Adam

Perhaps so, but it is strange that interest in it died within two days (see other thread linked in #27), long before Carrier issued his response to it. It looks like many of Ehrman's partisans have turned "Inactive" as a result of the hostility here to Ehrman.

Sorry for missing the April 25 thread "Ehrman responds..."

Vorkosigan

Rather, they were dismayed by the multiple examples of inexcusable, indefensible error. You can't stick around to defend people who didn't do their homework and don't know what they were talking about.

Vorkosigan