It would appear that Keith Burgess-Jackson resents me for daring to criticise one of his arguments. He has quietly removed me from his blogroll. (This google-cache highlights where the link used to be, on his sidebar.)
I must say I'm surprised by his pettiness. It would be understandable if I had been excessively rude or insulting towards him, but I think I was reasonably civil. I attacked his arguments, not him personally, just as he asks. I then emailed him, politely inviting him to respond to my criticisms. He never even replied.
Instead, he seems to be trying his best to pretend my criticisms don't exist. Despite this, he has so far written five posts about how horrible the folks at Crooked Timber are for agreeing with my criticism - which, remember, we're trying to pretend doesn't exist. That's sure to cause some serious cognitive dissonance, but maybe we can drown it out if we try really hard (and shout really loud). Let's call the CT folks "liberal punks" and complain about how they're being nasty and not engaging with his argument, because, after all, if we manage to convince ourselves that my blog doesn't exist, then how could it be 'engaging his argument' to link to a non-existent counterargument? Oh yes, we have the strength of a bear, the voice of a lion, and the logic of an ostrich.
Seriously though, I'm not sure how he managed to become a philosophy professor if he cannot cope with people challenging his arguments. I know I wouldn't want such an insecure and irrational teacher.
Shame on you, Prof. Burgess-Jackson.