Some background: a few years ago, Evangelical apologist William Lane Caig debated biblical scholar Hector Avalos. Craig went first, and opened with a bizarre stunt: he pointed to a previous debate where Avalos complained about claims made by his opponent (Rubel Shelly) which as far as I could tell (just from listening to Craig, before hearing Avalos' response) were misleading at best. Somehow, this was supposed to show a lack of character on Avalos' part. Craig claimed his personal attack was made solely in order to raise the level of his debate with Avalos. Avalos shrugged off this maneuver at the time, but more recently responded to Craig on this point, along with others that came up in their debate. Craig responded, accusing Avalos of unprofessional ad hominem attacks which Craig said ought to damage Avalos' reputation. Craig also claimed that, with one exception, "his remarks hardly merit comment."
The first problem is that the rationale is bogus: some errors really are so egregious that they call into question a persons competence or integrity, and there's nothing wrong with saying so in public debate. What's truly disgusting about Craig's response however, is the hypocrisy, since Craig was the first one to resort to personal attacks in his dealings with Avalos.
Someday, I will probably cease to be surprised by Craig's utter disregard for anything resembling professional ethics (which is why I refuse to call him a philosopher or a scholar, in spite of his doctorates). For the moment, though, he continues to astound me.