Richard's Latest Unscholarly Comments

If anybody is interested, Richard has posted again in the thread here. His latest post is more of the same. He unsuccessfully tries to defend some false claims he had made about Papias. The same Richard who said there was no historiography in the earliest centuries of church history, dated Luke's gospel to the middle of the second century, repeatedly misspelled terms like "ante-Nicene" and "Origen", repeatedly refuses to give evidence for his claims when asked, etc. is upset that I haven't engaged in "dialogue" that's acceptable by the standards of "the guild". Apparently, the scholarly standard is to behave the way Richard has behaved.