1) the argument from fallacy used by Elliott, which boils down to "don't trust Simonides, and since we don't trust Simonides his claim is false and thus Sinaiticus is authentic." A fail of Logic 101. And, to make this into an argument, they claim totally falsely that the whole understanding is based on what Simonides said. Anyone who simply reads the thread can see that is false, so there is nothing to refute.
Even if Simonides was unknown, the lack of provenance combined with the condition of the two ms. sections should cast a huge cloud over Sinaiticus authenticity, demanding close examination. And should result in putting aside the current fashionable acceptance of the Tischendorf 4th century insistence claims, that he began, quite suspiciously, in 1847 with the CFA. What Simonides gives is the historical milieu and general explanation of why Sinaiticus got to Sinai c. 1840. He also supplies and amazing historical corroboration, way beyond coincidence and normal explanation, with many elements. An example is the "called shot" of the colouring in the 1860s, when the mss were not available, that matches what we see today from the CSPO in The Tale of Two Manuscripts.
2) ad hominem, modern style (note: ad hominem arguments, even the modern style of against the man, are not ipso facto fallacious.) And they go on and on trying to disparage and attack my skills. As if reading about and seeing the "white parchment", flexible and supple ms, and the historical analysis, and understanding The Tale of Two Manuscripts, is a complicated Greek and Latin linguistics issue. (There are linguistic issues in Sinaiticus, some important ones were offered by James Donaldson and never answered, I do write about them at times and they are important, however they are not the basis of this thread and they are not needed to show that Sinaiticus is an 1800s production.) It is actually easier for those who are not enmeshed in modern textual criticism to see the forest of the Sinaiticus production puzzle rather than only seeing the twig of some soft evidence concern about textual variants and similar issues or relying on a book by Elliott that is obviously grossly deficient. A polymath and historic forensics approach is far more insightful than an ultra-specialty with presuppositions galore.
Now, it also helps to read about and understand how the textual criticism palaeography has been especially skewed since the times of Tischendorf, in ways that reverberate today, far beyond Sinaiticus. (e.g. Date ranges that are often far too narrow, one example is Brent Nongbri and others trying to correct papyrus dating that is far too early in the terminus ante quem.) With Sinaiticus you have a special problem that the two distinct ms. sections were made virtually inaccessible, and the conclusions were drawn from facsimile editions which hid the salient features. This tendency to non-examination, when the ms. is in fact physically still extant, is not real palaeography
3) appeal to authority - totally irrelevant, since few if any of these authorities actually saw and handled Leipzig CFA and the St. Petersburg-->England CSP, nor did they understand the fullness of the Simonides controversies (remember, Elliott even omitted Farrer's Literary Forgeries) nor did they revisit the evidences after the 2009 CSP. An example is Tommy Wasserman on the textualcriticism forum. He appealed to the same false arguments centered on using the grossly deficient James Keith Elliott. An appeal to authority is relevant only if the authorities can be shown to actually deal directly and properly with the evidences. You also have to note objectivity concerns and the fact that research connected with the British Museum and British Library you have to be able to read between the lines. The person or institution whose reputation is linked to the authenticity of a manuscript will quite naturally be slow to consider conclusions that are contra authenticity.
