Tektonics.Org Trophy Case

Best if Viewed While Restrained with a Seatbelt

Skeptical Victims of Tekton Apologetics Ministries

Compiled (in any particular order) by J. P. Holding

Last Update: Whenever!

Oh, dear again. Poor Mojo got back from his banana-hunting trip and immediately stepped in a big pile of moral dog doo with his recent updates. For one, he gave space to Joe "Wally" Wallack, a confused soul who was repeatedly edited and moderated on TheologyWeb for making crude sexual allusions and brazen anti-Semitic puns. For another, someone "anonymous" sent Mojo a copy of a response to me on TWeb, and Mojo posted it with no concern for whether it was posted somewhere and may have been reserved intellectual property. Well, that's the way it goes sometimes when you're a fan of "Skeptic X": You'll take anything, even if Adolf Hitler wrote it. Now, to top it all off, poor Mojo posted a response to "me" (ahem) on our Exodus logistics article, unaware that the portion responded to was written not by me, but by Tekton contributor Brent Hardaway (so much for Mojo's personal frustrated hate campaign). Sometimes you just can't win when you're irrational: you just keep shooting blanks.

Introduction -- this will pretty much speak for itself, but I will add a caveat. Many of the links below are NOT to the page where the works are located. Rather, they are links to the Google search engine, with instructions added so that Google will perform a search for you using selected unusual terms and phrases from the articles of the critics. (Don't understand the process? Skeptics with mental difficulties may read the tutorial here.) The purpose of this? To settle some of these whines about not having links being a way of "hiding" things. What crockery! We'll show them complainers just how simple and easy it is to find things. Unless they have a real problem, of course, finding things like their own backsides. Obviously your own results may vary as Google adds things to it's collection. This parody is also part fun, part self-defense, part answer to some of the more delusional personages peeling their bananas out there in their spare time. Such persons deserve a little pity for the dull lives they lead. As an aside, I also deleted links to those who refuse to honor my use of a pseudonym. These folks were given ample warning and have ample time to change such references, so there can't be any excuses about it. Get in gear, fellows. (Many links were all deleted 10/14/03. They sure had time to get their priorities in order, didn't they?)

An offer to debate LIVE at one of my alma mater, Florida State University, was issued long ago to distract from the beating C. Farris McTill has been getting in print!

The Trilemma critic, now known here as Daffy Duck, in the latest of his incarnations. Daffy figures you to be so lazy or stupid that you could never find his articles without help, and won't even click an email link to ask me who he is. He was right, but the reason was either patent disinterest or that my readers were smart enough to find him without a link. Well, for the rest of the world, consisting of Skeptics without the sense to use a search engine properly, here you go. BTW my replies to this gushing frenzy of anachronism is found first here, and then I subjected Daffy to his own drug of rhetorical analysis and stage fright here.

Daffy really wimped out on this one; I truly wondered if something had gone wrong and he had gotten sick. My reply here finally got some attention in January 2004 and now my reply is in the text of the original work.

Yep. The meister of the Christ myth himself. Back down his hole these days, see where I respond here. The Secular Web must be daft to allow this sort of credibility-destroying stuff on their server.

Wacky Packy tried to take on John Warwick Montgomery's presentation of the legal evidence for Christianity; I have a critique here which he gave up on answering, and someone else has really laid it on Packham here. Packy was one of the few Skeptics who had the thought to ask me politely for a link -- and I gave him one.

It woulda been a bad year for Earl what with the ossuary of James coming out -- wonder what excuse we'd have on that one? Maybe "sons of Joseph" was also a religious group...my responses may be found at various entries under Doherty's name here.

Skeptics who link here can trade in their reputations at the flea market. The Secular Web's Robert Price has called this writer's work "sophormoric" and concludes, "...no one whose disquiet with traditional Christian faith is based on solid fact or credible theorizing will want to recommend this book, much less appeal to it as justification for one's own doubts." By the way, Mojo -- there's no period after the "S" in Acharya S. My response to this here.

Keep in mind Sam likes my sense of humour. He likes it so much he tries to outdo it by using profanity and making jokes about girls' underwear. The person who first contacted me about him was a 17 year old young lady who was subjected to his disgusting commentary. More recently (summer 2004), Sam came on TWeb one weekend and was banned in less than 48 hours for his filthy language, which seems to be all he can provide as opposed to clever repartee. My responses to Sam still here.

look at this parody of it. See new entry below from tektonics.com, which Brookee has also purchased lately.

One of McTill's fans who can't write an actual rebuttal to a Tekton article instead writes a gossip piece on a reference mistake I made and admitted to. Now I wonder if we can get McTill to do the same on B-Greek or on a similar error. Mojo removed these articles (or at least the links to them) from his site for a while, but now having partnered with Brooks Trubee, has put them back.

Gleeson's an earnest fellow, but in over his head when it comes to the Greco-Roman client-patron relationship. Mojo finally found it, probably with my help. My reply here.

Mainly, by not spelling her name right and by using the word "BULLSH*T" a lot. I think I ran into this guy once on Beliefnet, and he ran away. Skeptics only wish it was this easy. A reader reports and I have confirmed that this site is now offline, so we will leave this here as a monument to vanished opposition, and as a reason for not giving links to fly-by-night Skeptics.

This site's author never names himself, not even with a pseudonym. Here he makes a run at my serious study of the Pope Leo X quote. My answer also at the link.

Mojo really scrapes barrel bottom as he's now welcoming Mormon Russell C. McGregor, not actually of Brigham Young University but an analyst for a livestock company in New Zealand. No link here, because according to my Mormon friends you're supposed to pay for a subscription to FARMS and Mojo is taking advantage of their "honor system" by linking to them. My friends on that side also think McGregor did a subpar job. My reply here, plus some comments from my leading Mormon acquaintance here.

Gerkin has since become an e-friend and ranks as one of the three most intelligent Skeptics I know. Take a hint: He doesn't play Mojo games because he doesn't take himself too seriously. In short, unlike most of these guys, he "gets it" about me. My response here and he and I have a new project here.

Hey, if Mojo wants more than Skeptics, here's another. This JW apologist ends up "refuting" me by providing explanations I agree with. See here for a response.

This confused case is the McTill of Christadelphian apologetics. His style: 1) Cite outdated sources that 2) merely reassert his original position and then 3) pretend you're above a reply. Cool, huh? My reply here.

Sapone seems to be an ex-believer with some issues. Here he replies marginally to my article on the birth narratives, mostly by posturing. My reply here.

A super-fundy explains why Luke 14:26 needs to be read in 21st century language. My reply here.

A record of one of Wally's pleas for help in debating me. See the full record of his embarrassment here and here and here.

On again, off again, on again site that thinks sound bites are a proper response compared to detailed engagement. See my reply to his latest here.

Someone passed Mojo BeHereNow's comments anonymously, and like a good respecter of intellectual property rights, Mojo posted it. Too bad they forgot to tell him where it came from, and that I had already replied.

Poor Mojo thinks this is an answer to me. It is actually an "answer" (guffaw) to something Brent Hardaway wrote for me, and defends here.

Edski pulls the fundy skeleton out of his closet on snakes eatin' dirt. I bite back here.

Edski comments on my, um, "theology". Like John MacEnroe commenting on tennis manners. My retort here.

Bonocore, who uses my pseudonym as he should, does an imitation of a fundamentalist. Wonder if Brooks or Mojo will want this one. My reply here.

My reply of course here.

[hosted off and on]

1.12.6 "Yes, Why Did McTill Think I Thought the Priests Were Expecting a Resurrection?"

1.12.7 McTill Blows His Nose on Abiathar and Rohrbaugh

This is one McTill seemed pretty desperate to get out of, probably because of this. But my
main answer here.

My reply of course here.

[hosted off and on]

1.12.6 "Yes, Why Did McTill Think I Thought the Priests Were Expecting a Resurrection?"

1.12.7 McTill Blows His Nose on Abiathar and Rohrbaugh

This is one McTill seemed pretty desperate to get out of, probably because of this. But my main answer here.

This is one McTill seemed pretty desperate to get out of, probably because of this. But my
main answer here.