Dr. Eric Svendsen has posted the following statement on his blog:
***QUOTE***
<< I have purged all the recent entries on this blog that referenced a certain highly emotional fundamentalist Roman Catholic e-pologist whose adolescent musings I have decided are just not worthy of my attention. I no longer think he and his views deserve the attention and free advertisement he is getting. I'd encourage others who may be dialoguing with him to do the same. He doesn't represent official Roman Catholic beliefs, and he's certainly not a recognized spokesperson for those beliefs. There is absolutely nothing to commend his views; he's demonstrated repeatedly that he is unable to engage in anything but sophistry on every level; he doesn't know how to engage in a fair handling of the biblical text; and to argue with him is to argue with a wall. I'm embarrassed to have mentioned him in the first place. On to more important things.
http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/some-deleted-posts.html
***QUOTE***
If you go over to the blog of Dave Armstrong, you find that he has reproduced this quote and taken it to be a personal attack upon himself.
He then uses this quote to justify a broad-brush smear against “these anti-Catholics' credibility and trustworthiness in matters of highly-important theological issues.”
The revealing thing about Armstrong’s reaction is that Dr. Svendsen never identifies the e-pologist in question. And there is, presumably, more than on Roman Catholic e-pologist around these days.
So why would Armstrong assume, without further ado, that Dr. Svendsen must be speaking about him? Why not the one-armed man?
Instead of naming him, Dr. Svendsen simply sketches the resume and psychological profile of a Catholic e-pologist who has the following character traits and modus operandi: “adolescent,” “highly emotional,” “sophistical,” “not a recognized spokesman” or “representative” voice of “official” RC teachings.
So why is Armstrong coming forward to volunteer himself as the only viable candidate for this anonymous indictment?
I realize that confession is good for the soul, yet such a self-incriminating reaction is startling, nonetheless. But having pled guilty, Mr. Armstrong has saved Dr. Svendsen and Dr. White a lot of time, which they can now divert to future suspects.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteTouche! So should we split the difference and zero sum the whole game?
Either that or we may need to clone the one-armed man!
For the second time, Patrick has insinuated that I’m operating with a double standard. Perhaps I’m guilty as charged. After all, a man is hardly the best judge of his own character. He has a vested interest in thinking well of his own motives. By the same token, a hostile critic is not necessarily the most disinterested judge of his opponent’s character.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, Patrick is assuming several things I do not assume. He assumes that because he takes it upon himself to speak for Armstrong, that I, in all consistency, ought to take it upon myself to speak for White. But I don’t buy into that assumption. I don’t presume to speak for either Armstrong or White. That’s not my responsibility. They can speak for themselves.
In addition, I have no firmly held opinion on whether Patrick is right to apply what I said about Armstrong to the case of Dr. White. To arrive at an informed opinion on that subject, I would have to plow through the archives of both men. Why should I spend my time that way?
On the face of it, there were fewer clues in Svendsen’s statement than in Owen’s, so the comparison is not comparable even on its own grounds. Owen spoke in the plural about “certain internet personalities” on the “rush to judgment” over “Eerdmans.” And White is a high-profile example of one of the internet personalities in question. By contrast, Svendsen singled out an anonymous individual, which makes it amusing when Armstrong steps forward to identify himself as the intended target. So, Patrick, your counterexample fails. Try barking up a different tree.
Apropos the above, there is no standing obligation to withhold comment on a member of the opposing side unless you mentally run through ever member on your own team who may possibly be guilty of the same thing.
Finally, Patrick’s objection reminds me of how Democrats attack Republicans. For example, we were told that we shouldn’t support the Iraq war because the Bush administration had lied, or because it had changed its reasons for going to war. We are also told that we should oppose a judicial nominee because our liberal attorney general once called his conservative, one-time colleague a judicial activist.
This is a classic partisan game. Since I’m not the White House press secretary, my position on the Iraq war or judicial nominees is logically independent of the official line. I can have my own reasons, irrespective of the White House, even if I voted for Bush.
By the same token, my consistency does not entail that I must be consistent with someone else. Their consistency, or lack thereof, is their own affair.
You are missing the point, Patrick. I don't deny that Svendsen was talking about Dave. But I recognize that fact because the shoe fits. And Dave can only see himself in this highly unflattering, but anonymous description on pain of self-incrimination. So who am I to argue with that?
ReplyDeletePatrick,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it’s a very minor matter. So why do you keep drilling a dry hole? There is no more oil to extract. I’ve already explained myself more than it’s worth. As a matter of principle, I have to be argued out of a position. No freebies allowed.
However, as a special favor to you’ll, as a one-time offer, not available in stores, I’ll meet you half-way: I’ll admit I was wrong about Armstrong if’n you admit you were wrong about Rome. Have we got a deal?
In the meantime, there’s no dearth of serious discussion material. As I recall, you were the one who referred me to Shawn’s material. Okay, I took you up on your challenge. Posted my findings several days ago. Dead silence from your end of the receiver.
p.t. You have an anger-management problem. Clearly this is personal—reacting to a bad experience. Something in your background, I take it. I don’t know the source of the problem. Were you bottle-fed? In any event, if you can’t restrain yourself from posting expletive-laden comments, then go work off your bad karma somewhere else. You might feel more at home at Tektonics, since you and Holding have learned your command of the vernacular from the same speech therapist. As it stands, this is a very poor witness. You are doing more harm than good for the cause of the kingdom.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYou can say what you like about me and my motives. You may well be right. But whatever my character flaws, for you to rope Steve Jackson into your general condemnation does nothing to enhance your credibility. Jackson has conducted himself throughout this affair as a consummate Christian scholar and gentleman--and that in the face of endless provocations from your side. You need a cooling off period to take the true measure of Jackson.
c.t.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to put up with R-rated language at triablogue. I'm giving you until the end up the week to clean up your posted comments or else I will delete them myself.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing you've said to which I take personal offense. Given my rather slashing prose-style, I'm in no position to take offense. The fact that the rhetoric from the opposing side can get a little overheated is, to my way of thinking, a natural masculine reaction. All those androgens kicking in! :-)
I really don't have any problem with the tone which you, or Randy, or the "Frogg" have assumed in these exchanges. And unlike Armstrong, all three of you have tried to reason for your position. There's a quite a difference between a bit of invective here or there, in the heat of the moment, and pure invective as a substitute for argument. All said, I think that you three have conducted yourselves honorably in this whole affair. You have nothing to apologize for--not to me, at least.