I think it would be best to keep the conversation to one's personal interpretation of the data, and to pointing out actual, provable erroneous claims. If one side speaks mistakenly, for example, about when a manuscript was discovered, that is misinformed. If one side is found to be lying, that's another matter.One could argue that it is better to say that the people who contributed to this volume are misinformed. Conversely, one could say that ministers of the gospel, who are supposed to be heralds of truth, ought to know better and need to be judged more strictly than the average person.
Much of the conversation seems to surround interpretation of historical facts, and of course one's interpretation will depend on one's doctrinal presuppositions. I appreciate the need for forceful language at times. This is an extremely important matter.
And Daniel, I'm surprised that you were turned off to further investigation by rhetoric. The truth is the truth and one should never stop seeking. I hope that you settled the matter for yourself based on conviction rather than just being turned off by people's ways and words.