This is my "un-biased post":
These wars that get started on the internet are usually more painful to watch than funny. Here's probably the worst example.
Now before I attack Holding, I want to be clear that whenever someone says they "technically" didn't lie or deceive, then I think a kitten dies somewhere, but that is really beside the point.
I think that Holding was perpetrating the worst type of ad-hominem there is, show someone lying to discredit their entire corpus of arguments. So no on Theology Web anyone who doesn't want to deal with Loftus' arguments can point to that thread and say "See?" This is more evidence that we are all wannabe's, but it gets worse.
Apparently this trick by Loftus inspired Holding (or Turkel, whatever) to create a set of satire blogs under the username John W. Locust. I don't know where he finds the time, but I think that the worst part is that it really isn't funny. How hard is it to put "porn" under the list of interests? But even if it was good satire, like the site from my earlier post, then attacking someone personally just never gets it done. We all try to quote scholars and talk about how much we've read, but the first chance we get, we attack someone personally. And I mean everyone, because Loftus is just as guilty of this himself.
I know Christian posters like Holding think that satire is just their way of communicating their message, and atheist posters like to "make Christians mad," but it just makes all of this look very stupid. Of course, I might be flattered if someone thought enough or not enough of me to make fake blogs against me. I can dream, can't I?