The subject under dispute is somewhat esoteric, but please bear with me.

As I noted last week, Shoebat claims that the Greek number "666" in the Book of Revelation is actually the author's attempt to write "In the name of Allah" in Arabic. He claims that he realised this after consulting ancient codices, in particular the Codex Vaticanus. One point I made in response was that Codex Vaticanus does not contain the Book of Revelation (although it wasn't my main point, and I did allow that Shoebat may perhaps have seen some other ancient manuscript, such as one that is doing the rounds online). Richardson seized on this:

I went to the personal blog of the author of this article and saw that the image that he has posted of himself shows him sitting in a pub sipping a pint of beer. I fear that he may have been sipping a bit too much before writing this article.

The Codex Vaticanus does indeed contain the Book or Revelation, it is simply a later supplementation to the earlier manuscripts. A tiny bit of research could have produced this fact. The actual image of the portion of the Book of revelation that is part of the Codex Vaticanus is below. Scroll to the third column to the right and the top line, marked 18 (Revelation 13:18) contains the image that Walid used:

www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2003/GA03_150b.jpg

Images of the entire Codex may be viewed here:

www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2003/

Which could have been found if Mr. Bartholomew had gone here instead of sipping beer:

www.csntm.org/Manuscripts.aspx

Next time, you may wish to step outside of the usual Wikipedia sourcing for your articles Richard.

Actually, I researched the point using various sources, such as The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995):

Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century manuscript of the Greek Bible...All NT Scripture after Heb 9:14 is missing.

Other scholarly sources concur (Google Books is useful here). The older Catholic Encyclopedia gives some further background:

In modern times (fifteenth-sixteenth century) the missing folios were added to the codex, in order, as Tregelles conjectures, to prepare it for use in the Vatican Library.

Presumably this is the origin of the "later supplementation" that Richardson thinks in some way makes Shoebat's case stronger; a supplement added 1,000 years later in Italy that in no way can be seen as part of the original Codex. But there's worse: the jpeg in fact shows a page from the 1868 Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus. This is a facsimile of the ancient text, but it has a typeset version of Revelation tacked on at the end. Shoebat perhaps used a nineteenth-century typeset edition of Revelation to draw the paleographic conclusion that a fourth-century Greek manuscript of the book (which doesn't exist anyway) meant to show Arabic letters!

Richardson's response was amusing: he argues I am still "in error" for some reason, and that I "look bad"; and further that I

tried to overplay a largely irrelevant oversight on Walid's image sourcing (it is irrelevant it his larger point because the image he used is precisely like the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority text or any other ancient Greek Mss)

But Shoebat's whole argument was that by looking at an ancient manuscript he realised that Greek letters were not intended, whereas Greek letters certainly were intended in the "Byzantine Majority Text". And besides, it seems that Shoebat did not apparently look at any "ancient Greek Mss" anyway! It seems that the way to admit to being wrong in the circles in which Richardson moves is simply to declare the issue to be "irrelevant" and to change the whole terms of the argument. Hence Richardson points me to a new site he has made, in which he uses the letters from the 1868 edition (which, by the way, he elongates and misleadingly labels as part of the Codex) as the basis for his comparison with the Arabic.

Richardson continues by demanding to know why

...do I not see you publicly renouncing the doctrine of death for Apostasy that is practiced throughout the Islamic world and endorsed by Orthodox Muslims?

 As it happens, I have written plenty on Islamism and its unhappy consequences, but what that has to do with the issue at hand is unclear to me. Presumably the argument is that prioritizing truth and reason over hating Islam is morally deficient in some way, and that therefore my counter-arguments to the Arabic "666" can be discounted.

For easy reference, here are the relevant pictures:

(1) The oldest fragment of Revelation 13:18 we have, from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri ("616" rather than "666", so the middle figure is different):

(2) Another possibly ancient fragment, used by some websites as evidence that the text is "really" Arabic (The Codex Vaticanus designation is erroneous; the real origin is unkonwn to me, but there is a claim that it can be seen under glass at Bob Jones University):

(3) The text as it appears in an 1868 supplement to the Codex Vaticanus:

(4) The 1868 text as elongated by Richardson:

(5) The 1868 text as reproduced in Shoebat's presentation:

Salem Kirban looks like a serious scholar in comparison.