Avoiding pejorative labeling

(...like I avoid eating ice cream on a regular basis.)

I sincerely wish to avoid pejorative labeling, but I simply cannot avoid the parallels. There is massive overlap between the arguments made by those who claim Textual Confidence (those who use NA/UBS and modern translations) and the arguments made by those who are Textual Skeptics (those who hold a postmodern skepticism toward the text of Scripture).

• Both groups hold that we do not know the original words of the biblical writers.
• Both groups use the same key words to describe the transmission of the New Testament text: initial text, the evidence, science, academic standards, copyist errors, shortest is best, oldest is best, etc.
• Both groups agree that inspiration does not demand perfect preservation, and insist that we do not now have a text of exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote.
• Both groups insist that preservation of biblical text is natural rather than supernatural, and what we do now have are chance survivals from the past.
• Both groups surmise that having only one Bible is mala doctrina.
• Both groups minimize the differences between the various transmitted Greek manuscripts.
• Both groups call the Textus Receptus corrupt.
• Both groups functionally resort to anything that is not the TR.
• Both groups do not put which Greek text in their church (and other institutional) statements and fail to specify on which they rely.
• Both groups assert intellectualism and credentialism to prop and promote their views.
• Both groups dismiss and ignore my arguments. Everyone should have to answer to me.

Note: (to make a point) a parody of comments made by Mark Ward HERE.