GakuseiDon

I believe his reason is something like "to ridicule those who deserve ridicule". His pet hate is people who "read the Bible like it was a newspaper". Sometimes his responses are no worse than the posts he is responding to, but I agree that sometimes he overdoes it, and that is counter-productive IMO.

He has requested that his real name or personal details not be used, so refuses to link to any article that uses it. Whether this is reasonable or not, that's what he has said.

Where has Holding not respected the anonymity of others?

gregor2

When did Turkel state that this was his reason for the no links? I'd never read this justification until just now.

Steven Carr

Actually, Holding uses very few primary sources. He tends to always use secondary sources.

Not all his secondary sources agree that Holding's use of secondary sources is good.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...t=36887&page=2

One of Holding's sources said of him :-

'It sounds as though the person
you refer to is using my description of behavior in the Mediterranean world
of antiquity to sanction his behavior in the 21st century. If that is the
case, then he is being silly. We live neither in the 1st century nor in the
Mediterranean.

People have been citing the bible for centuries in the name of some
"My Will Be Done" project (or religion). That some are doing this with my
writings is no surprise.'

Holding's response to his own source's comments on Holding's work was to say that his chosen source was talking BULLDADA, and ask that the moderators close down the debate with sceptics that he himself had started.

You've got to admire Holding though. Most people, after taking such a licking, would have thought twice about debating sceptics again, but Holding still keeps on,although he has fewer supporters on Tweb than he used to.

GakuseiDon

I'm kind of surprised by that, since both Farrell Till and Holding have mentioned it on a few occasions, and the issue goes back a few years.

Here is Farrell Till mentioning it:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...l/turkel1.html
At some point, Till then not only published Holding's real name, but his address and phone number as well. Holding had been debating Till on a few topics, even providing links, but said that he would begin removing links where Till used Holding's real name. He then extended it to apply to all his debates.

This is Holding's article on his debate with Till from early 2003. You'll notice that it still includes a few links to Internet Infidels:
http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tilldebate.html
(Editted to add)

Here is another article from Till that he paper-published in 2002, which I believe included Holding's address and phone number (it has been removed from the on-line version by the Infidel's editor):
http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4/024jph.html
I don't know about you, but if someone who had been working in a prison said they were worried about former inmates seeking vengeance for writing "disciplinary reports" (compare that with Till's earlier comment implying that the threat was due to Holding writing "pro-Biblical articles"), I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As I said, I'm surprised that Holding's reasons (or excuses, depending on your view I suppose) aren't common knowledge. Most people seem to know that he was a librarian at a prison.

Ebonmuse

As others have said, I have no problem with the fact that Holding wants to use a pseudonym if that's what he prefers (although I must note that when he first responded to one of my articles, he looked up my real name, which I do not mention on my site, and posted it rather prominently on his, without asking me if I had a problem with this).

What I do have a problem with, on the other hand, is his snide, arrogant attitude and his constant stream of ridicule and invective directed at anyone who disagrees with him. It's as if he thinks he can shore up a weak point by coming up with an especially creative insult for the person who pointed out its weakness. This sort of juvenile behavior makes it a real chore to wade through his writings, which is why I have no intention of writing any further reply to him or otherwise dealing with him in the future. I prefer to spend my time responding to apologists with whom I can carry on a civilized conversation.

Peter Kirby

Linking to an article helps to put it at the top of the Google heap. All else being equal, if "Earl Doherty's web page" linked to "Earl Doherty: A Critique," but the critique didn't link back, the critique would come out on top. (Or, if the critique links to the original, but the original doesn't link to the critique [which might be the normal way of things given the order they are published], then the original would come out on top.)

best,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon

You're right. Holding does do that, and he shouldn't, esp since you don't give his real name on your site. (I do note, though, that Holding links to your website).

Yes, I agree. I've seen Holding debate atheists in a respectful manner, and I've seen him blast posts that probably deserve it. But the articles that you've written for your website are done in a serious, considerate manner, and don't deserve the "Holding" treatment.

MrKrinkles

Steve,

Perhaps you are referring to this article here.

Here is a similar article.

Cheers,

Brooks

Steven Carr

It does mention constipation, so we know it is a geunine Holding article, as it continues the doo-doo leitmotiv.

Ebonmuse

Yes, he does - I give him credit for that.

Thanks - I do appreciate it. I won't claim Holding doesn't know what he's talking about; he seems to be reasonably well read. It's just too bad he can't seem to carry on a conversation without lapsing into these silly schoolyard tactics. Has he really had civil debates with atheists? Where can I see them?