It feels a little futile to add to a thread which already appears dead, but Briggs himself commented on the many "criticisms" made by one particular person he felt was representative of the general rank and file on this one. I thought his response summed things up rather well. The quote is here, from the comments section on his blog:

Briggs says: 3 February 2012 at 1:51 pm Trent1492,

I have no idea who you are, but your comments of today are typical, so I thought I’d single you out. Actually, yours are on top; the only reason I picked you.

Now, I mean this nicely and in the spirit of constructive criticism. Your comments show that you haven’t any but the barest, slightest familiarity with statistics, particularly Bayesian statistics, and the branch of it called predictive statistics, nor of the philosophy of evidence. I have said, and do say, that I used particular terms in a technical way. I have given links to works which show exactly what those technical definitions are. Further, I have given extensive reasons why those methods should be used and the necessary difference between them and inferior methods of analysis.

I accuse you of not reading them, of remaining in ignorance of the concepts at hand on purpose and of maintaining a blustery, unsustainable attitude of self-superiority. Your failure to do your homework could be because of laziness, or because of inability to grasp the material, or pigheadedness and inability to admit to a mistake, or some other reason I cannot fathom. If you were a student of mine, I not only would have failed you, I would have written a letter to your parents to come fetch you and give you a lecture on diligence and propriety.

All are welcome to comment here, but only if they act like ladies and gentlemen. Criticize me, lecture me, tease me, even. By all means show me where I am in error and I will call you friend. But first learn whereof you speak or you make yourself look foolish and waste the time of others.