Why doesn't James Patrick Holding publicly assert that Craig Blomberg is a moron?

Inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg obviously doesn't interpret Jesus' legal commands in Matthew 5 in the evasive way that Holding does: 

 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
 41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. (Matt. 5:40-42 NAU)

 Blomberg's commentary clearly disagrees with Holding' hair-splitting bullshit, and shows that it really does mean what it says:

(e) On Retaliation (5:38–42). 5:38–42 Jesus next alludes to Exod 21:24 and Deut 19:21. Again he formally abrogates an Old Testament command in order to intensify and internalize its application. This law originally prohibited the formal exaction of an overly severe punishment that did not fit a crime as well as informal, self-appointed vigilante action. Now Jesus teaches the principle that Christian kindness should transcend even straightforward tit-for-tat retribution. None of the commands of vv. 39–42 can easily be considered absolute; all must be read against the historical background of first-century Judaism.⁴⁷ Nevertheless, in light of prevailing ethical thought Jesus contrasts radically with most others of his day in stressing the need to decisively break the natural chain of evil action and reaction that characterizes human relationships.⁴⁸

Antistēnai (“resist”) in v. 39 was often used in a legal context (cf. Isa 50:8)⁴⁹ and in light of v. 40 is probably to be taken that way here. Jesus’ teaching then parallels 1 Cor 6:7 against not taking fellow believers to court, though it could be translated somewhat more broadly as “do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you” (GNB). We must nevertheless definitely resist evil in certain contexts (cf. Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:9). Striking a person on the right cheek suggests a backhanded slap from a typically right-handed aggressor and was a characteristic Jewish form of insult. Jesus tells us not to trade such insults even if it means receiving more. In no sense does v. 39 require Christians to subject themselves or others to physical danger or abuse, nor does it bear directly on the pacifism-just war debate. Verse 40 is clearly limited to a legal context. One must be willing to give as collateral an outer garment—more than what the law could require, which was merely an inner garment (cf. Exod 22:26–27). Coat and shirt reflect contemporary parallels to “cloak” and “tunic,” though both of the latter looked more like long robes. Verse 41 continues the legal motif by referring to Roman conscription of private citizens to help carry military equipment for soldiers as they traveled.

Each of these commands requires Jesus’ followers to act more generously than what the letter of the law demanded. “Going the extra mile” has rightly become a proverbial expression and captures the essence of all of Jesus’ illustrations. Not only must disciples reject all behavior motivated only by a desire for retaliation, but they also must positively work for the good of those with whom they would otherwise be at odds. In v. 42 Jesus calls his followers to give to those who ask and not turn from those who would borrow. He presumes that the needs are genuine and commands us not to ignore them, but he does not specifically mandate how best we can help. As Augustine rightly noted, the text says “give to everyone that asks,” not “give everything to him that asks” (De Sermone Domine en Monte 67). Compare Jesus’ response to the request made of him in Luke 12:13–15. It is also crucial to note that “a willingness to forego one’s personal rights, and to allow oneself to be insulted and imposed upon, is not incompatible with a firm stand for matters of principle and for the rights of others (cf. Paul’s attitude in Acts 16:37; 22:25; 25:8–12).”⁵⁰ Verses 39–42 thus comprise a “focal instance” of nonretaliation; specific, extreme commands attract our attention to a key ethical theme that must be variously applied as circumstances change.⁵¹

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 112)

  How can Holding insist that somebody he considers an atheist with zero significant bible knowledge (myself) a "moron" for adopting Blomberg's interpretation, and yet the same Holding doesn't call Blomberg himself a "moron"?

Logically, isn't it the person who has the far greater knowledge of gospel truth (Blomberg) who has less excuse for misinterpreting this part of the gospel?

Or is Holding nothing but a mere child trapped in an adult body, inconsistently pretending that the mistakes of his enemies deserve mud-slinging, but the exact same mistakes of his friends deserve no comment?

Well Blomberg has endorsed Holding in the past, gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?