Somebody has an odd form of criticism. (of Carrier)

Apparently we are to conclude that Richard Carrier is a pathological liar because he cited #11 when he should have used citation #12. In an essay, from a decade ago, that he's corrected elsewhere and says has some mistakes and is superseded.

http://religiousyetsane.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-are-atheist-scholars-so-dishonest.html

Because apparently 1 error = Pathological Liar = Other side wins = God.

Oh, also he removed a lot of crap that wasn't about Jewish burial practices, in his essay about Jewish burial practices, between two passages that were about Jewish burial practices. Clearly because the original intent of the passage is to be long and have a bunch of stuff about how children are stoned to death in boring detail, because that changes so heavily how you bury them?

It's sort of weird, because he's good enough to check the original sources, but terrible enough to be confused as to what is and isn't a valid criticism of somebody's work.