I wish to thank Michael Bird for hosting Nicholas Perrin, and to Perrin for his responses (#1 and #2) to my cautions about his portrayal of my own work in his new book, Thomas, The Other Gospel.
I want to reiterate that I do not regard my cautions (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) as a review of his work, which will be taken up in formal published peer reviews (although Mark Goodacre has begun this review process already on his own blog, presenting a very detailed and thoughtful comment on Perrin's book). My only intent in my own postings was to safeguard the integrity of my work and its argument, so that the misunderstandings surfacing in Perrin's work are not appropriated into the secondary literature as my actual positions.
I want to also mention that I just discovered that Nicholas Perrin is publishing a two-part bibliographical article on Gospel of Thomas studies between the years 1991-2006. The first part of the series ("Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research [1991-2006]: Part I, The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels") has just been published by Currents in Biblical Research 5.2 (2007) pages 183-206. I believe the second part will be published in the next volume of CBR.