Following yet more serpentine twisting from one David Thiessen of Theology Archaeology (see David, this is how you grant proper accreditation, you name your source and link to them, unlike you), my good friend Bruce Gerencser, who has also been a victim of David’s charlatan antics, wrote a post about how to give credit. Bruce’s post contained, among other things, links to sites that discuss the proper way to credit someone else’s work, something that David chooses not to do.

Once such link came from Linkedin, It helps define attribution:

Attribution is the process of acknowledging the source of the information, ideas, or words that you use in your web content. Attribution can take different forms, depending on the type and amount of material you use, the style guide you follow, and the expectations of your audience. Generally, attribution involves two elements: a citation and a reference. A citation is a brief mention of the source within your text, usually with the author’s name and the date or year of publication. A reference is a more detailed description of the source at the end of your content, usually with the full title, publisher, URL, and other relevant information.

Now, I am not perfect at any of this, but does David even attempt to do any of these things, in respect of me or Bruce? No, he does not. For all his claims that mine and Bruce’s material is reference material for educational purposes, David does not provide any would-be ‘students’, or indeed anyone, the opportunity to verify anything that Bruce or I have to say. Why does he fail to do this? Because he wants to dishonestly distort the narrative. Take for example, his opening paragraph:

Just because we mentioned that we spotted the word ‘transparency’ on the MM website that our article called ‘Transparency‘ is a response to their post. it wasn’t and it was worded to make sure it was not a response to what MM had written. he writes:

David referenced me in his opening paragraph (albeit without a link, or addressing me by name, for that would require integrity), so clearly he felt inspired to write his post because of what I had said. He is not fooling anyone with his attempt to have us believe his post had nothing to do with me.

The first example in that quote is that as long as we do not take credit for his words, we are not plagiarizing. Since we mention our source, he has no argument. he just likes to whine and cause trouble.

It’s not a question of taking credit for what I have to say. I never made the argument David is claiming I’ve made. The problem is that David does not give credit to me.

The second example is that we mention, not demanding that you credit our website if you use our information. We do not dictate to anyone how that credit is to be given. We have never gone after anyone or complained about how they have referenced us.

Copyright

He rants a lot, which you can see for yourself at his site, via the link I provided, and along the way, delves into some truly strange territory:

How is he our friend? We know what he has written about us on his and other websites and friends would not write what he has written nor falsely accuse us. It is he who is claiming that we put him in the enemy category when we said no such thing.

I never claimed we were friends! Not once have I made that suggestion or implication, so this is yet another example of David attacking an argument I have not made.

This is the trouble with a lot of people not just MM> We did not call him our enemy and he assumes he is included in what we wrote when we were addressing a biblical passage. It is obvious he is not our friend given his past behavior towards us on his and other websites.

But he likes to make assumptions, play the victim card, and then distort what was written. The Bible tells us that there can be no fellowship between righteous and unrighteousness, so what are we to do? we turn the other cheek when we read words like:

Once again, I never claimed we were friends, so this is a curious and strange line of reasoning David is following. However, he certainly treats me like an enemy, by lying, repeatedly so, about me. He also certainly does not turn the other cheek. I tried to with him for months, in the face of repeated lies, but David is incapable of leaving me alone.

He is building a mountain out of a mole hill. If he does not like how we give him credit that is his problem. We have linked enough to his website for our readers to know who were are talking about or quoting. Targeting is a strong word as we do not target people but use examples from their words to make points, a fact that continually is ignored.

David doesn’t give credit, that is the problem. I doubt his ‘audience’ (which probably consists primarily of me and Bruce at this point) will be aware of who he is quoting, and he is denying his audience context. He doesn’t make points, because he strips context away from what I am saying.

We are not afraid of his website or our sources, another false accusation. But he is good at making them We have our reasons for why we have adjusted our crediting sources but he won’t accept them and continue to lie about our reasons.

We are not being dishonest so how can he say we are not upholding the principles we claim to uphold? We have not changed his words or said that they are ours so he really has no argument. As we have said, he is the only one to whine and complain about our use of other people’s content.

I never said he changed my words, nor that he claimed them to be his, so yet again David is relying upon a dishonest Strawman argument. I doubt he will acknowledge this. He is however most certainly afraid, or he would name me properly, and link to my site properly.

This is the reason you are reading this post. He continually makes false charges and considers them to be true. We have constantly addressed the substance of his content. he either does not like what we say and whines and complains or he changes what he or we have said in his follow-up posts.

Then makes a host of false accusations against us. We have not sniped from the shadows but since he does not accept our reason for quoting his website we won’t repeat it here. The Bible says he who speaks of his own testimony that testimony is not true.

We highly doubt that he is transparent. He is just another unbeliever doing what unbelievers do best. If he were honest, he would state that we do not address all of his content, just the posts that we feel are important enough to mention.

I don’t make false charges, and that’s the true reason David does not link to my posts. He is afraid that his audience will see for themselves, very clearly, who is more interested in deception, and who is open and honest. I never claimed he sought to address all my content, so yet again, another Strawman. This is all David has. Stripped-down fragments, taken out of context, and denials of any wrong-doing of any kind.

He is the one causing all the trouble and creating a feud that does not exist on our side of the debate. He says he wants us to leave him alone, but we are not bothering him nor are we antagonizing him.

He creates the problem all on his own because he refuses to allow us the same right to address material that is placed in public. Notice he did not address our point that he probably blocked us. He claimed he didn’t but when we went to his website we were blocked.

It is not for David to determine whether or not he is bothering me. I am the one who decides this. If he had any decency, he would honour my request. He would take me up on my offer to discuss matters privately. Instead, he prefers to launch into a string of ill-conceived character attacks. I have every right to block him, since he cannot be trusted to operate in a fair and open manner. It is worth noting that he can still leave comments, assuming he continues to circumvent my block of his IP addresses and VPNs (which he is doing on a regular basis, or how else would he be able to quote me?), but he does not have an automatic right to my material.

He cannot seem to tell the truth. But then unbelievers do not obey the objective standards for morality, etc., and use their own standards even though they are not better than anyone else’s.

The biggest issue for David is that I know what the truth is, and I lay it all out in the form of links and quotes, correctly and properly attributed to who requires it. His refusal to be transparent, and to give proper credit, would not happen if he were brave, and honest. If he stops his vendetta, gives proper accreditation like any reasonable adult would, and is transparent, I will go as far as to remove any references to his true name, and details connected to it, from my site, and I will remove my block of him. That’s more than he deserves, and it is dependent upon him proving to me he can be honest.

EDIT 21/11: I decided to remove any mention of his real name, and remove the blocks, regardless of whether or not he chooses to be reasonable. We’ll see if he is capable of matching that gesture with a reasonable one of his own.