Stephen E. Jones has just posted this comment on his site in a critique of Charles Freeman’s "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey,"
I have deleted all my comments in which I wrongly assumed that Charles Freeman must have been paid for his articles on the Image of Edessa (see above).
I have reposted those deleted comments minus anything about Freeman being paid for his articles.
Some of the comments are now out of chronological order, but there does not seem much point to reposting the reposted posts in current chronological order because they will be out of sequence with the posts they were a continuation of.
This followed this unusual comment from Jones on my blog:
I don’t normally read comments to Dan’s blog, but I was tipped off by a commenter on my blog that Charles Freeman had replied to a comment on my blog, on Dan’s blog, where the comment, as far as I am aware, has never appeared. . . .
which followed an even stranger comment from Charles Freeman:
Dan. I have no objections to you reproducing Stephen Jones’ attempted critique of my articles on the Free Enquiry website. They are good publicity for the articles themselves which often cover much the same material as Yannick Clement here and other scholars on the manifold problems of Wilson’s hypotheses. They keep debate open. However, I do urge caution. As earlier posts of his critique on your blog show Jones has had to rewrite one of his misrepresentations of my work (Your blog August 8th) and on July 11th a poster, David Mo, showed up the inadequacy of Jones’ argument. So far as I am concerned he has consistently failed to tackle the actual points I have made but that is his problem not mine. . . .
Hat trick to Freeman! Jones Unhorsed! Too bad, because if you strip away the unnecessary accusations and errors, Jones is
rightingwriting some useful and powerful comments.
What difference does it make if Freeman is paid, anyway?