I normally try not to give link love to those who completely don’t deserve it, but in this instance I have to in order to defend myself against spurious charges. In this case, the charge is recorded on this page here:
Now, there are numerous ways to refute the charge. In the first place, I was out of town and away from internet access during the time in question so could not have posted the comment, in the second place, it cannot be documented that I have a pattern of such behavior, and in the third place, even if I had, it would have been pointless to delete the comment out of principle and then link to it as often as he did in the first place.
You see, the charge was just a cover for the real agenda, which is to associate my name and ministry with various search terms in an attempt to manipulate google results. I assume that this is in retaliation for the blistering take down of Richard Carrier’s series of assertions about Antony Flew and his book. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. I don’t personally believe that Richard Carrier would stoop this low, but I certainly understand and expect it to be standard operating procedure for certain folks who believe themselves so utterly in the position of being right that the rival person or position does not even get the dignity of a reasoned response.
In this case, the problem is complicated I think by the fact that a reasoned response is difficult to generate in the first place.
I expect that the cats will continue to play while I’m out on the road and that some ingenious manipulation of google shall be accomplished. I wonder, though: will Richard Carrier- once he becomes aware of the steps being taken in his ‘defense’- denounce and distance himself from such methods?