jgibson000

Though "Nazaroo" avoided my question about whether he himself has ever sent to Bart Ehrman his ("Nazaroo's") "work" entitled "Ehrman is a F***ing Liar", "Nazaroo" has nevertheless forcefully claimed here that Bart has seen this "work".

But is this claim true?

The very fact that "Nazaroo" notably (but not atypically) dodged my question about whether he himself ever sent Bart this "work", not to mention how he (conveniently) found an excuse for not answering what his evidence was for a subsequent claim that "Bart's people" had been trying to get pulled the web pages on which this "work" appears, made me highly suspicious that the claim was bogus.

So to insure that my suspicions were justified and to find out the truth of the matter, I wrote the following to Bart:

Subject: hoo boy
Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 16:25:18 -0500
From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@comcast.net>
To: Bart Ehrman <behrman@email.unc.edu>

Bart,

I trust you've seen this?

http://cadesign.webworkercanada.com/pa/DUMB/Ehrmin.html

Was it sent to you by its "author" who claims that "your people" have
been trying to get it removed from the internet?

See http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...78#post4426978


Jeffrey

And Bart has replied.

With his permission I reproduce here what he wrote:

Subject: RE: hoo boy
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 17:49:28 -0400
From: "Bart Ehrman" <behrman@email.unc.edu>
To: "'Jeffrey B. Gibson'" <jgibson000@comcast.net>


Nope, never seen it. It's a lot of nonsense -- I suppose anyone with
intelligence would be able to see through it. Or at least one can
hope.....

Best,

-- B

Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies

Sooo in the light of this, what should we conclude about the claim made by "Nazaroo" that "you know damn well that Ehrman has already seen it and read it over quite a bit" and that "Ehrman's people already put enough pressure on one server/provider to have them remove the article from one of our sites, through some scare tactics."?

To my eyes, the conclusion is self evident. Nazaroo has ... well, I was going to say "lied"", but sensing that I might get censored for this, let me put it this way instead: Nazaroo has not told -- indeed he has trampled upon -- the truth.

Doubtless, "Nazaroo" will claim, if he responds to this, that it is Bart who is lying After all, this is a charge that he's leveled against Bart (but never to Bart's face!) more than once.

But since (1) so far as I can see Bart has no reason not to tell the truth about this matter, and (2) it's been apparent here on more than one occasion that "Nazaroo" has a tendency to bend the truth to suit his purposes, I'm going to need some hard evidence from "Nazaroo" -- i.e., copies of his correspondence with Bart and/or proof that Bart had been sent "Nazaroo's" "work" -- before I believe him.

Does anyone want to take my wager that no such hard evidence will be forthcoming, and that instead we'll see bluster and bluff?

JG

jgibson000

Just received this from Bart in response to my alerting him to this thread:

So in the light of this -- and unless he wants to lay himself more open than he already has that vis a vis his recent claims about what Ehrman has seen (let alone seen over and over), "Nazaroo" has engaged in willful prevarication -- I now call for "Nazaroo" to provide hard evidence for the truth of his claim that "Ehrman's people already put enough pressure on one server/provider to have them remove the article from one of our sites, through some scare tactics."

Jeffrey Gibson

Riverwind

HAHAHA LOL!!!!!!!

:rolling:

:jump:

:thumbs:

Aww...Jefferey...you're evil, man! :notworthy:

gregor

While I've got Nanapoo on my "ignore" list, I will volunteer to be one of Bart Ehrman's 'people.' Do we get a hat or T-shirt?

Nazaroo

Yep, that sums it up. Thanks for gumming up all my threads, just because you want to get even with Ben Davidson (mr.scrivener), and you seem to think he's me or I'm he or some nonsense.

For a guy with a "PhD" in philosophy or some crap you really are a ****.

Get a life.

Toto

Nazaroo: you can't get off that easy. Jeffrey Gibson may or may not have evil or malicious motives, but just ignore that. He seems to have produced some evidence that you made a (ahem) mistake in an earlier statement.

You can withdraw the statement, you can justify it, or you can say that you were just playing around with us. But you can't very well ignore it.

Nazaroo

Where's the mistake?

Ehrman used his clout to get one of the servers to place server-side code preventing the loading and displaying of the webpage on Ehrman.

As a webhost provider (or if not nevermind), you know that there is no 'evidence' to provide. Most of our websites are running on free-webhost providers offering restricted permissions and rules. We can't really afford to get into an argument with our server-hosts. We just opted to host that particular file elsewhere offshore and out of Ehrman's influence.

So there's nothing to withdraw. Its YOU or some other moderator that has withdrawn most of my plain statements, and even edited out comments in the ~elsewhere~ section.

Talk about "super-censorship"...

Nazaroo

Oh, and P.S., thanks RIVERWIND, for revealing your true purpose in engaging me in further discussion, only to misdirect it to some other nonsense.

So next time I won't be responding to your feigned interest.

<edit>

Toto

Why do you think that Ehrman used his clout, as opposed to your server-host having some general rules about posting defamatory content?

Nazaroo

There's no defamatory content, and the transcripts are backed up by public video and audio recordings, linked and downloadable on the net. In case those are taken down, I have archived the sites (NPR comedy central) and there are online site archives too.

The only reason a web-provider could have or would have done that, is that someone complained, AND they found the complaint to contain substance.
But they also should have contacted us.

However, again, the point is, these are mostly free or subsidized services, and we can't really complain to them about the quality of the service, even if they made a mistake.