There are some out there (including Skeptics) who tell me I ought to ignore Skeptic X as one not worth spending inetllectual energy upon. The point is well taken; his obsessed bitterness is its own best argument against him, and arguably there are better opponents out there to confront, such as the brick wall. Nevertheless it's fun now and then to get on his case, especially when the case is one of foot in mouth disease and it is so easy to wind him up and get a response out of him where he makes even more mistakes. One recent example is his obsession upon a minor comment I made in an article against "T. Rex" some years ago:

Did you ever notice that no one in the Bible is ever recorded as actually using a restroom? Well, does that mean we think people went through Bible times with their legs crossed? Of course not. Rex seems to think he's revealing news here, but it's only news to anyone who hasn't been asleep for 3000 years.

X righly realizes that this was a "sarcastic attempt at humor" but nevertheless, in his obsession takes it as a literal commentary and proceeds upon a diatribe concerning at least a dozen references to "restroom" usage in the Bible which he says instantly came to mind (that this of all things comes instantly to his mind speaks volumes, but that's another story). In fact this statement by me was no more literal than someone who starts a joke with, "Have you ever noticed...?" Take this sample from one of X's own Skeptical comedians, George Carlin:

Have you ever noticed? Anybody going slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac.

One can readily see Skeptic X approaching Carlin after his program with a list of persons that by golly he DID see going slower who he thought were NOT idiots, and who is Carlin to make such a generalization. You may wonder by now why X sought to make an issue of this at all, and we will see why shortly; but first let us wrap up a few points of "argument" from his end (so to speak). X goes on to claim that I "revised" my article because I mistakenly forgot Saul's usage. As a matter of fact a reader did note that instance -- jokingly, for unlike X, they did not take me literally -- and the addition was nothing more than further pursuit of the gag. Even so, just as Carlin surely doesn't think all who go slower than he does (or others do) is an idiot, so likewise only a fundy atheist fool would think I was making a literal statement about Bible restroom usage. It is true, of course, that though X finds several such instances in the Bible, the fact is that the vast majority of the people in the Bible NEVER are recorded as using the loo. And thus my point against T. Rex about using silence as a proof (which Skeptic X of course says nothing about) remains intact, despite X's fundy atheist shenanigans and his paranoid implication that "saving face" was at stake. It is amazing indeed what extremes X's paranoid insecurities will lead him to -- and indeed, how utterly frustrated he has been by the constant beatings he has received at our hands.

But the real reason X is making an issue of this at all devolves down to something else. In fact, it is clear that what has happened is that X was desperate to look for some opportunity to use something against me that he thought was gold, but shall end up dross in his mouth. I refer the reader to the item here which is a record of a forum conversation which I had with someone. Who? Watch carefully as X frontloads his mouth with his foot full-force:

Priapus was a derogatory name that Holding repeatedly used in reference to Brooks Trubee, one of his opponents on the TheologyWeb. Priapus was the Roman God of fertility, who was always displayed with an enormous, erect penis.

I'm so sorry, Skeptic X, but that is completely in error. The designation "Priapus" was NOT used of Brooks Trubee. It was NEVER used of Brooks Trubee (I'd call him "Coalemus", actually). The name I applied rather to a person described here, who is decidedly not Brooks Trubee, but rather, an Internet predator who cyberstalks women (and thus enacts the role of Priapus). Perhaps Skeptic X is such a misogynist that he thinks that sort of behavior is acceptable? I would actually guess not -- but after this gross error of mistaken identity, Skeptic X ought to hang his head in shame; though he will most certainly not, but rather engage in his usual "skilled rationalizations".

There is one irony in all of this. X closes by saying that all of this meant that I spend "entirely too much time dwelling on rather un-Christian thoughts." This, mind you, after he himself has quoted the Bible numerous times mentioning restroom functions. It seems that X shares something in common with that predator -- a Victorian-fundamentalist mindset.