Of late, James Swan and Turretin Fan seem to be insinuating that Dave Armstrong is less than intellectually or morally consistent. But while their accusation is entirely understandable, it happens to be based on a case of mistaken identity. And that’s because they’re tacitly assuming that there’s only one Dave Armstrong in the universe. Therefore, they find it difficult if not impossible to reconcile his contradictory statements as well as the glaring contradiction between his stated policy and his real policy.
However, appearances are deceptive. You see, there are really two individuals in the universe who jointly and simultaneously constitute Dave Armstrong: Uncle Dave and Antidave.
The Antidave is the alter-ego of Uncle Dave. The Antidave made his escape from parallel universe when warp travel created a rift in the very fabric of the subspace continuum. The Antidave is the antithesis of Uncle Dave.
Uncle Dave is a modest, kindly, saintly, self-effacing man who does whatever he says. Birds eat out of his hand. Snarling pitbulls wag their tails and roll over on their backs at his approach.
But the Antidave is a vain, vitriolic, frantic, manic man in whose presence sleeping babies wail while zoo animals flee for cover at his approach.
If the Antidave ever meets Uncle Dave face to face, a little mushroom cloud will rise over Detroit as matter annihilates antimatter. And then there will be none.
I like smarty-pants, mocking, Voltaire-like Steve much better than "you are evil / you are a pedophile enabler " Steve. At least the smarty-pants version is funny, albeit no more truthful than the sinister alter-persona. A post about your own two-faced behavior would - -without a doubt -- be quite a scream.
ReplyDeleteI rather got a kick out of your saying I was "evil" and beyond all joking and mocking anymore, and then seeing you mock about three days after that, and since.
Then it was hilarious that you wrote a serious post about one of my arguments without a single mocking insult in it. Did you really think I would respond because you managed to make a non-insulting argument for a change?
If I am so thoroughly evil, why would you bother? Doe's over on his blog saying no one should take me seriously, and you're here trying to engage an intelligent discussion with a guy who is utterly evil, but isn't, but is, but isn't?
Y'all are really gut-bustingly funny, especially to one like myself who loves the zany, the odd, and the bizarre in humor. You've become self-parodies and you were already funny enough to start with.
"Uncle Dave is a modest, kindly, saintly, self-effacing man who does whatever he says. "
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean that if "Uncle Dave" comes by Triablogue and announces that he is done with dialoguing with "anti-Catholics", that he would, in fact, ACTUALLY be done interacting with "anti-Catholics"?
That must mean, by elimination, that we are being re-visited (again) by "anti-Dave"....bummer.
DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
ReplyDelete“Did you really think I would respond because you managed to make a non-insulting argument for a change?”
I have no expectation one way or the other. I win either way. If they don’t respond, I win by default. If they do respond, I argue them down.
“If I am so thoroughly evil, why would you bother?”
So you don’t think Catholic theologians should write books about the devil and demonology and possession and exorcism. I mean, the devil’s so thoroughly evil, why bother?
“Doe's over on his blog saying no one should take me seriously…”
Well, Swan can speak for himself, but there’s no inherent contradiction in commenting on someone you personally don’t take seriously. If other people take someone more seriously than he deserves to be taken, then that, of itself, can make it a serious issue.
Take the Jesus Seminar, or Bart Ehrman, or the boilerplate atheism which Hitchens and Dawkins churn out. Or Dan Brown. It has no intrinsic merit. But because it’s influential, it needs to be cut down to size.
STEVE SAID:
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong said...
"I rather got a kick out of your saying I was 'evil' and beyond all joking and mocking anymore, and then seeing you mock about three days after that, and since."
You're misrepresenting the specific context of my remarks. You're also setting up a false dichotomy.
What you said and did in your post about James White and Patti Bonds (and subsequent comments) is beyond satire.
That doesn't mean most of your other stuff is spoof-proof by any means. And it doesn't mean that you personally, are beyond satire.
Moreover, it's quite possible to satirize evil. Consider The Great Dictator by Charlie Chaplin or The Producers by Mel Brooks.
At the same time, the subject-matter of those to comedies also calls for serious treatment. One can do both. And both are needful.
Steve paints a grim picture...
ReplyDeleteIf the Antidave ever meets Uncle Dave face to face, a little mushroom cloud will rise over Detroit as matter annihilates antimatter. And then there will be none.
If that were ever to happen, let's resolve to get him/them out of Detroit. We just lost the "Billy Jean" kid a few weeks ago and the thought of Hitsville, USA/Motown being caught up in that "little mushroom cloud" is more than my heart can bear right now.
By the way Steve, has there ever been other Uncle Dave and Antidave manifestations in the past? And, if this is the case, has your "mushroom" scenario ever occur in Detroit?
I'm just wondering why they call that guy "Smokey."
CHURCHMOUSE SAID:
ReplyDelete"By the way Steve, has there ever been other Uncle Dave and Antidave manifestations in the past?"
They're similar to apparitions of the BVM. You just need to know where to look. Apparitions of Uncle Dave and Antidave tend to pop up in grilled-cheese sandwiches at A & W restaurants along Route 66.