Dishonesty by Robert Turkel (J.P. Holding)

In Turkel's response to "The Jury Is In," he criticizes me on the basis of arguments I never made, writing that I "botched" three points. I pointed out that I hadn't made those arguments, but rather a different argument that he doesn't address. (The format of the "Jury" Feedback publication does not make it entirely clear, but the paragraph beginning "But the problems for these prophecies" and ending with "descendents of Jeconiah" is what I have written on the topic Turkel is discussing, in my "Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah".) But Turkel's response is:
3) Finally, let it be noted that Lippard has not even acknowledged his errors delineated above! This is as much as saying, "Well, you got me on points one, two and three, but YOU FORGOT POINT FOUR! HA HA HA HA!" Let us be straightforward: We have enough questionable scholarship to deal with in Jury and elsewhere WITHOUT having to also address the writings of Jim Lippard, whose scholarship has been sufficiently exposed as unqualified elsewhere. Replies to Lippard will be left to those who have already begun answering him. If we do address Lippard's material at some point, it will at our own volition, and AFTER we have completed the other tasks as hand.
Contrary to Turkel, my response is not that he got me on points 1-3, but that points 1-3 don't refer to anything I wrote, and that the one point I did make (point 4) is not addressed by Turkel.

(Written 3 February 2003, long after the referenced material--I have never corresponded with Turkel, and only today came across his article while looking at his exchange with Farrell Till of The Skeptical Review. I responded way back when in the "Jury" Feedback section because the Turkel comment had been forwarded to me by the editor of that section for a reply.)

Turkel has written a response to one of the below documents here, where he writes:

Naturally Lippard does no such thing. He speaks of "arguments he never made" which I take to mean that he denies that I understood his argument correctly. I obviously didn't. If Lippard is not saying this, but trying to blame Robby Berry for misattributing arguments to him, then whose arguments are they, and why are they attributed to Lippard? Frankly I don't care, and there are enough examples of Lippard's ignorance exposed by Glenn Miller (including the precious "Point Four" which was not in my topical consideration anyway) that the word "botched" requires a picture of Lippard next to its dictionary entry anyway. In any event try to figure out what wondrous advantage this gives me in saving souls, as Brooks would have it.
He still doesn't get it. No, I don't mean he misunderstood my arguments, I mean he mistakenly attributed statements to me which I did not author and which were not attributed to me by Robby Berry--the error is Turkel's, but it's unlikely he'll ever own up to it, since he doesn't care.

Other Turkel dishonesty and sloppiness is pointed out here: