Drilling a dry hole

***QUOTE***

Here's one of the funniest quotes I have found in a long time: very appropriate today:

"For a guy who prides himself on being such a satirist, Armstrong’s reservoir of humor runs dry as soon as he is the one being spoofed. There was even the veiled threat of legal action."

(Steve Hays: "Me, myself, and I," 7-4-05)
(http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/07/me-myself- and-i.html)

Not one rational argument yet from all my critics. It's all personal attack.

Do you have any rational response Scott: that actually interacts with what I wrote? C'mon, be the first critic on this topic to do something besides ad hominem nonsense. I know you have it in you . . .


***END-QUOTE***

Dave Armstrong is trying his level-best to get oil out of a dry hole. He is also trying to rewrite history.

Just to recap:

1.In my reply, entitled “Jesuitry” (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/12/jesuitry.html), I began by referring Dave to a distinction I had drawn before the email hoax—one which he himself cited.

2.On the basis of that distinction, I then generated a sixfold taxonomy of hoaxes:

i) Someone impersonates a real person in a self-evidently satirical hoax.

ii) Someone invents a fictitious satirical character in order to lampoon the theology or ideology represented by the fictitious character. People may or may not be taken in by the hoax, but the blogger did not impersonate a real person, so there is no libel or defamation of character.

iii) Someone impersonates a real person with no intent to deceive, but his impersonation has that unwitting effect.

iv) Someone impersonates a real person with the intent to deceive, defame, or defraud.

v) Someone satirizes an individual or ideology in which his caricature has a factual basis.

vi) Someone satirizes an individual or ideology in which his caricature has no basis in fact.

3.I then applied that to the case at hand. The email hoax appeared to be a type-4 hoax, although it was actually a type-3 hoax. There is a morally profound difference between the two.

Frank was responding to what he initially though was a type-4 hoax when it was really a type-3 hoax. He threatened legal action on the basis of a type-4. As soon as discovered that that this was an innocent type-3 hoax, he relented.

4.As to the hoaxing of Armstrong, this falls under type-1 and/or type-5.