UPDATE: James White responded to this piece (perhaps emotionally reacted is a better description. In fact, White appears so emotionally distraught over the post below, he wouldn't even link to it.). And, I must thank him for offering yet another layer to the pile of evidence for my contention that James White routinely specializes in vicious verbal and moral assaults against those who offer public critiques of his considerable errors. Apparently, according to White, I now suffer from some form of derangement. So be it. Perhaps I do. On the other hand, what does my alleged derangement have to do with whether or not James White hacked my piece entitled "John Calvin: A Real Evangelical Cover Up" by misstating I used a single source for my conclusions concerning Servetus when I actually used four sources? Furthermore, how does my supposed derangement affect White's unsubstantiated judgment that I used the "most biased" source when a) White cannot substantiate his judgment why an attorney's research automatically constitutes "most biased" because we're all supposed to know attorneys "don't do really good history"; b) cannot explain the conclusions of three eminent church historians whose speciality is Reformation era studies, conclusions which call into question White's defense of Calvin murdering Servetus? Mormons unfortunately are correct. James White routinely ignores real issues only to descend into the abyss of the you-sir-are-a-liar type argumentation. Hence, Part 2 of "James White and Historical Hooey" is still in queue regardless of White's emotional flurry.