I could be wrong…

Commendable admission, then [faints].

There's no unwillingness on my part.  As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't have his contact information, nor did I really think he would care to engage in a lengthy debate from some unknown chump from the internet.  Last I heard, he has 11 children, and I assume he'd be too busy for that and mostly just annoyed by it.

Here's a copy of my reply to you on another thread.  It's put down here for the benefit of anyone else who may not have seen it.
************************************
That you "never even thought to communicate with him," the one person more than any other it would have made good sense to and human decency, not to mention the words of SS as in Matt. 18:15 would seem to call for, seems a bit of a stretch, but I'll give you the favor of the doubt any way that you "never even thought to communicate with him."  Well now that you have thought to here's his e-mail address and his phone number which a man as intelligent as you are certainly could have easily accessed by yourself via his website at https://www.robertsungenis.org/p/about.html:  cairomeo @ aol.com  Phone: 717 - 597 - 8670

p.s. What a relief to know that you are not "accusing him of deliberate or conscious dishonesty," but (if we are to take you at your word in another thread) of rather merely being intellectually dishonest. Hope you will make that known to him directly so he has a chance to reply to you directly.

There is NOTHING—NOTHING WHATSOEVER "legitimate" about calling a good and honest man "intellectually dishonest."

Your (plural) objective sin of calumnious character assassination is not remitted by insisting I have "human respect" for Bob or by proclaiming your "rationality." If you were as rational as you imagine, I wouldn't have to repeatedly state that the calumny, not the FE evidence, is at issue.

Mark, I have repeatedly stated that the intellectual dishonesty has nothing to do with any judgment of him "in the internal forum" regarding his character or honesty.  In fact, I'm convinced that he's a "good and honest man," as you describe.  I'm not sure how many different ways I have to explain it.

What I'm referring to is a clear up-front intention to want to refute FE and a bias against it.  It's very obvious, and can be demonstrated from Dr. Sungenis' own words, that he set out to disprove FE.  This has led to his reading things into various citations that are no there in the text, "eisegesis" of the texts he has analyzed (that's his term, which I tend to avoid because it's regularly abused by Modernists).  I can give clear examples where to an objective reader there's no evidence in the text itself for what he "sees" there.  That can only be because he wants to see it there and is looking for it.

In fact, Mark, Dr. Sungenis does that repeatedly in his book, refers to "eisegesis" by flat earthers due to their bias.  He's referred to them as clinging to their ideas on account of bias, and he's gone much further than I have against him by accusing FEs of distorting, and at one point approvingly cited a text from a glober that FEs are dishonest liars.

So, since you're in communication with Dr. Sungenis, will you send him an e-mail now excoriating him fro his "objective sin of calumnious character assassination" against flat earthers?  As soon as you send such an e-mail to Dr. Sungenis, then I might take your posts seriously.

If someone writes a book, and spends 100s and 100s of hours of research, writing and editing of it, for public sale, we can assume that what they wrote is what they meant.  No one is under any obligation to contact the author to verify this or that.  IT'S ALL IN THE BOOK.  If the author didn't mean what they wrote, then they don't have the talent to write and the book shouldn't exist.  Either way, if there exists valid criticism of the book, since the author put his thoughts in public, such criticism is the author's fault and should be expected.  No author writes a book for sale and gets mad when many people enjoy it.  Thus, he cannot get mad if people disagree with it.  A public book, like a public politician, cannot expect the same level of privacy as a normal citizen, for he invited either adulation or criticism when he made his opinions public.

Damn it. Even if he has confirmation bias it can be (and, based on the pattern of his work, almost certainly is) a mistake.

Has Typhoid Meg infected the entire forum with her damned readings of the interior forum of others?

Bob deserves the most charitable interpretation of his disagreement with your opinions. If you said "Argument X is a straw man and Exhibit Y uses confirmation bias," that would be fair and objectively sinless, but to read his intent ("willful" and "on a mission") is objectively sinful reading of another's interior forum to which you do not have any access.

If and when you point out to him the errors you claim and he responds inappropriately, only then can you legitimately make these claims of willful dishonesty.

Bob has been very accessible and very responsive to criticism. Instead of doubling down on insulting him, I suggest that you email or call him and report back.

Mind you that I have no dog in the FE fight. I have no opinion on FE because I have not investigated it one iota. While I find geocentrism quite interesting primarily through St. Hildegard's and Bob's writing, I have ZERO interest if FE.

I will not get drawn into the FE argument, but will simply leave it at this—It is damn rotten behavior to impute ill intent to someone whose track record deserves better. I see irony regarding "intent." In your argument against martial arts male/female personal contact training (unless it's contacting the instructor ) the intent of protecting innocent life mattered little to you, but in this case the intent of Bob's "willful" "mission" consumes noticeable attention from you.

I do have a dog in the fight about insulting a man who deserves better treatment than the Meg interior forum poison. Damn it. Call him or email him and report back. Until then, leave his interior forum out of it—PLEASE!

Well said!

Igen, én is elegem van azokból az emberekből, akiknek büszkesége tönkreteszi azt a jót, amit tesznek.

"Yes, I too am sick of people whose pride destroys the good they do."
 

Well, duh?  No doubt, he keeps himself engaged in much more productive endeavors such as his duties of state for starters.  If he allowed himself to get distracted and sucked into the potential quagmire/quicksand of CathInfo he might never make it out and if he did his detractors would no doubt call him cowardly for ceasing the engagement.

It's Sungenis' book and movies being questioned by traditional Catholics. The tide is changing and the truth is out. Everyone worth his salt that watch these exchanges wants to know how this ends. Sungenis would do a lot better bringing his case before thousands of views on Cathinfo than wasting time on Youtube with a dozen or so weekly participants. If he suffers a tough audience in this forum, all the better for all of us because that's what it takes to get the truth out. He'd be a hero either way. Prove his case, he wins. Humble himself, he wins. C'mon Sungenis. Let's get 'er done.