There's a lot of entertainment value in this for me, if anyone wonders. ;-)

As expected, our poke with a stick into the weasel cage at the zoo produced an e-mail from the fairgrounds within less than a day. You would think by now that Skeptic X knows he's being baited, but the old bean never learns his lesson and just ends up sticking his foot deeper into his tonsils -- even as he tries to play the same old manipulation games with his "challenges". Let's tune in:

The records will clearly show that my challenge has been to debate [Holding] on an open internet forum where readers will have the opportunity to read everything that both of us post and not just what he selectively quotes from my articles. I would gladly accept his own website as this forum if he will agree that it will be entirely open and that he will not edit the material so that readers will not see everything that we both post.

That's the major bit of meat, and we'll play the drum roll for now and look at this again at the end, because we have a special surprise -- we accept the challenge. With caveats, of course. (Heh heh!) But first:

I further propose that our exchanges be posted also on as many internet forums that will agree to carry the debate. That would include my errancy list, which I unhesitatingly make available, and Tim Taylor has offered alt.bible.errancy as a carrier of the discussion. If anyone reading this knows of other sites, especially Christian forums, that would agree to post EVERYTHING both sides say in a debate, please notify me and [Holding] of the availability of these sites.

I agree. Be sure and notify me. But I haven't heard from anyone yet, and its been two weeks. And whoever it is will just have to take it off my site and work with it.

If ever again [Holding] claims that I am insisting that we debate "in my forum," where I will have what he calls "homefield advantage," everyone who has read this will know that he is a liar. My challenge is to debate him in ANY internet forum that will publish EVERYTHING posted by both sides.

Of course, by now Skeptic X has no choice but to take the bait. But more on this at the end. I am further accused of selective editing in the Hosea-2 Kings debate, and referred to the Secular Web's full account of Skeptic X's reply. (Hmm, X, some reason why you can't do full replies on there now? Been kicked off for bad behavior? Is that why the 1999 TSR is not linked right, and why 2001 hasn't been updated since who knows when?)

Hmmm, when did I take 6 months to reply to Hatcher's original article? If he means that I spread my replies to Hatcher's endless listings of fundamentalist writers who agree with his position over several issues of TSR, I certainly did that, but there is only so much publishing space in a periodical.

Be that as it may, why was that space filled for the first 4 months with complaints about Hatcher using biased sources that did nothing to refute the content of his arguments? It can only be because Skeptic X didn't have the goods for at least 6 months to make any sort of reply. As for giving Hatcher a hand, I do so already on the site. Skeptic X knows where he can go to respond.

Hmmm, who were the seconds that I called in? I defy [Holding] to find a single person whom I have ever asked to step in and help me in "fight the Daniel battle." I have published replies to Hatcher from others, but these articles were unsolicited.

Whether they were solicited or not is of no relevance -- if Skeptic X has the goods, he doesn't need help from other people, and whatever they reported he should have reported himself earlier. Again, pair this with the 6-month delay and what we have is a clear indication of someone who talks before they think based on an assumed premise, and then has to scramble to counter the arguments and make shift and use help wherever possible -- just as in the Hosea-2 Kings debate.

Has [Holding] ever read the exchanges between Hatcher and me? If so, he should know that Hatcher is the one who hurls quotation after quotation, and almost always, these quotations are simply unsupported assertions for which Hatcher offers no corroborative evidence.

Yes, I have read the exchanges, and here is how they go:

Hatcher: "Scholar X, who has studied the Ancient Near East and its culture, language, and society for 25 years, says A."

Rinse and repeat for the next 35 pages. That's all that there is to it. Much of what follows is more of the same, IOW, Skeptic X proving that all he has is "rinse and repeat" to offer, though this was a colorful note:

So how about it, [Holding]? Are you going to accept the proposal or shall we just call you [J. P.] "Chickensh*t" [Holding]? Such a designation would certainly be appropriate for a loud-mouthed biblicist who is too cowardly to confront informed opponents and tries to hide behind a pseudonym.

Hmmm. Not too bad, but your eyes need to bulge a bit more to make it effective. But now let's get back to that challenge:

The records will clearly show that my challenge has been to debate [Holding] on an open internet forum where readers will have the opportunity to read everything that both of us post and not just what he selectively quotes from my articles. I would gladly accept his own website as this forum if he will agree that it will be entirely open and that he will not edit the material so that readers will not see everything that we both post.

I accept. And here are the caveats:

1. Skeptic X must first refute what I have written here demonstrating his propensity to use sausage-ball filler in place of actual argument. In other words, from this article, prove to me that EVERYTHING is worth posting and essential to the arguments, that EVERY word is precious nectar of the gods that cannot be sacrificed. I say that no more than 10%, more likely less, of what Skeptic X offers is anything other than fluff, repetition and blather. Each and every word must be justified as to purpose and necessity to be left in, otherwise, Skeptic X can find his own hosts. Note that I will not accept any backing down, i.e, Skeptic X cannot backtrack by saying, "Well, I didn't mean that you couldn't edit a little bit out" -- he says EVERYTHING, so I'm going to read his words like a Church of Christ fundamentalist preacher and assume that he means EVERYTHING.
2. I pay for this site, so correspondent with the 90% fluff ratio I demand that Skeptic X pay for 90% of the costs of hosting any item he submits -- whether he meets challenge #1 above or not. Obviously the amount would have to be determined based on going rates for server space and the length of the article written. I also want payment for 8 years in advance (about the time I have the tektonics.org name reserved). Based on Skeptic X's behavior I am not so sure he'll be around that long before giving himself a coronary, and I think the security is a good idea.
3. Last, should this be agreed to, and before any further response on any other issue than #1 above, I want to first discuss the item here where Skeptic X called upon Wood's book on Marco Polo to support his polemics, and I replied by noting the disagreement of Polo scholar John Larner with three of Wood's major arguments which Skeptic X cited. I want Skeptic X to issue a reply to each of Larner's counterpoints. If Skeptic X deigns to reply I will locate Larner and/or at least a dozen other scholars who specialize in the history of China and/or Marco Polo and send them Skeptic X's reply for evaluation. Let's see if Skeptic X can deal with the experts when it isn't the Bible he's playing with. I think he can't deal with them, and that he makes his way by shazaming the gullible into thinking that yelling "Prove it!" or "How do you know?" is a legitimate form of argument.

In the meantime, wipe your chin, Foo Foo. You're staining the rug again.

More here!