Thursday, July 09, 2009

Troll Feeding Time

Dave "Troll" Armstrong must need his ego stroked, because he's gone back on his word, yet again, with respect to engaging "anti-Catholics," calling people names and so on and so on.

Over at Beggars All, he says of Jason Engwer:

I engaged apologist Jason Engwer in a huge, CARM-sponsored debate on SS and the fathers, but alas, he decided to leave the debate less than halfway through:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/reply-to-jason-engwers-catholic-but.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/reply-to-jason-engwers-catholic-but_21.html

I've been in many debates about the fathers' views. My experience has been -- almost universally --, that the Protestant (even the many who weren't anti-Catholics, that I have debated) offers no further argumentation, once the Catholic side is presented. That's a shame, because for me, the best part of every debate or dialogue is in the second round, where things get very interesting. It's so rare to find anyone who is even willing to get that far into a discussion. 'Tis a pity. But if one has a weak case, this is altogether to be expected.
He writes of me:

The ones who turned down the chat debate made it very clear at the time, why they did so. For example, Gene Bridges, writing on TAO's blog on 10-25-07:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/10/debate-challenge-by-dave-armstrong.html?showComment=1193345040000#c5196332919770302740

". . . you are a chronic liar . . . I'd rather not waste an over an hour of my already brief life on talking to you. It would be poor stewardship of my time. I follow the same policy with you that Steve Hays follows, and since the greater luminaries of the debate world aren't debating you, why should I? You're the one that refuses to debate them in public, . . . And here's another reason Dave: Titus 3 says to reject the factious man. You are the epitome of that man. You've demonstrated that several times. Further, this isn't about the truth for you Dave, however defined, it's about stroking your own overbloated ego. Frankly, after observing your past behavior as well, such as particular artwork that gets posted from time to time, I'm not willing to debate with a person of such obviously low character either."

There you go! I am a wicked, wascally scoundrel,and so ole Gene has no time to debate me!


Jason can speak for himself...

With respect to me...By way of reply:

Thank you, Dave for proving my words about you being a chronic liar are 100 percent true.

Here's what Uncle Dave didn't include, namely the full quote:

Dave, I don't keep up with your blog or comments that you hide in the comments of other blogs. I come by you when I stumble across you.

I have not received a proper request from you for a debate, so don't go running about telling people I have "refused" to debate you about anything. Notice that this is, what, all of one or two days, and already, according to you I've "refused."

In fact, let's put this in context, the only reason I am aware of your request now is that I saw it here.
It's announcement was not in an email to me (that would be too easy and logical, since my mail is public) but in a link to your blog that you posted one or two days ago, near the end of a comment thread on a prayer request for rain! Since it is presently raining here, I wasn't aware I needed to check it for debate challenges on Catholicism. Sorry,but that tactic earns you an automatic "No," since you lacked the integrity to simply email. You had your chance, and you blew it.
This reply is also here, and not on my blog to make that point. I've placed it where I found the challenge, and it's not in my email box.

Further, you are a chronic liar who says that we want monologues with you. As I recall, you are not banned from posting commentary in any article I have written on Catholicism on Tblog, and, since I've written on you recently, as I look around, I've seen my name show up once on your blog. Again, you had your chance then,and you blew it.

Oh - and since the infallibility of the Pope had not yet been made a de fide object of faith in Rome until the 19th century, what Steve and I have said stands, and, as usual, what you say doesn't begin to touch what we have stated. It suffers from anachronistic reading of texts.

If you would write something less than the long, incoherent, and rambling posts you write - posts that an English professor would grade "C" at best, I might be willing to do a blog debate. I prefer to respond to other articles or, in your case, to you shoddy, incompetent,and anachronistic exegetical work.

I don't use a chat function on my computer-not even for AOL - all chatrooms are blocked-, and I'm not a member of Paltalk, and don't intend to be. I don't even use a soundcard. I also have a real life in the real world, and that includes working as a freelance writer who will be chronically several conferences beginning in November. I also live with terminal illness. I'd rather not waste an over an hour of my already brief life on talking to you. It would be poor stewardship of my time.

I follow the same policy with you that Steve Hays follows, and since the greater luminaries of the debate world aren't debating you, why should I? You're the one that refuses to debate them in public, and then you have all the courage to issue a debate challenge to me near the end of a comment stream on praying for rain. I learned about it here, and then I had to Google that by first Googling for a debate challenge from you to me, going to your blog, which I don't read already, and then finding the thread on my blog, not in a thread on the topic of Catholicism, but on a prayer request for rain. Why should I honor that, Dave?

And here's another reason Dave: Titus 3 says to reject the factious man. You are the epitome of that man. You've demonstrated that several times. Further, this isn't about the truth for you Dave, however defined, it's about stroking your own overbloated ego. Frankly, after observing your past behavior as well, such as particular artwork that gets posted from time to time, I'm not willing to debate with a person of such obviously low character either. You've also taken an oath to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics", and yet here you are wanting us to interact with you. I, for one, take the Law on making vows seriously, and I am not going to contribute to you sin before God in violating your word.

But here is something you can do Dave. You can renounce Rome and all her merits. You can cast yourself on Christ and Christ alone, and you can trust in Him and Him onlyfor your eternal salvation.

I'll remind, you, Dave:

you are the very definition of the factious man about whom Paul warned Titus, as well as a chronic liar. Indeed, let's not forget, Dave, the way you "challenged" me to a "debate," and let's not forget that you were the one dictating the terms of the debate.

Let's put it this way...you really are a second rate adversary. Debating you is about feeding your own overbloated ego. You sir, need to repent and turn to Christ, not engage in debates. That's one reason people refuse to debate you. It's not worth our time. TF is being extremely generous. If you really wanted a debate, you'd take him up on his terms. Debate his way on his terms...but, as always, it's all about Dave. It always has been and it always will.

Further, on the one hand, you constantly oscillate between not engaging anti-Catholics and then calling people whom you label anti-Catholic, such as yours truly and Jason, to debate. These two propositions pull in logically opposing directions. Pick a position and stick with it, Dave. It's just that simple. But the fact that you can't be bothered to keep you own word, much less tell the truth signals to us that you are dishonest opponent. Why should anybody on your side of the aisle or ours debate dishonest opponents?

You're a troll, Dave. Normally, I don't feed them. Now go back under your bridge. Away with you. Go pester somebody else.

And before you get the completely illogical idea that I am either up for debate now or are somehow "afraid" to debate you. No, Dave, not at all, on either count. Why? Well, I've had some very serious family issues going on for the past few months, some of which has cleared up, some of which has not. That is a large part of the reason I don't post on Tblog very much at all. I've not had much to say, and I've not had the time to say much. Simply put, my real world responsibilities are taking my priority right now. It's that simple.

16 comments:

  1. To be clear, the debate with Dave Armstrong that I left was one that didn't have any length that was agreed upon upfront. I left after I had said what I wanted to say in that context. I didn't address everything Dave wanted me to address, and he's saying that I left "less than halfway through" in that sense.

    Later that same year, Dave decided to not respond to most of an article I had written in response to him, and he wrote on that occasion:

    "On 12 October 2003, I was informed by Jason that he had responded to this paper. Regrettably, he continues to misrepresent the Catholic position (which is identical to my own, as a Catholic apologist). Thus, I can't justify devoting any more time to 'dialogues' with Jason. Besides, I have already given him more space on my website to explain and defend his non-Catholic views than any other person (seven long dialogues, adding up to 1.34 MB of space: the approximate length of my two longest books). I've repeated my arguments endlessly."

    In other words, Dave has sometimes "left the debate" as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why do I get the feeling that this dialogue with Dave is going to end with him vowing to never dialogue again?

    It's a feeling of deja vu....

    ReplyDelete
  3. *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge*

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave seems to have a problem distinguishing between words and concepts. Vow...oath...resolution...promise.

    When we pin him on a concept, he resorts to words. When we cite his words, he appeals to concepts.

    Of course, he has yet to engage TF on the terms TF outlined or answer TF's own question.

    Lots of words though. Lots and lot and lots of words.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why do I get the feeling that this dialogue with Dave is going to end with him "vowing" to never dialogue again?

    It's a feeling of deja vu....(again)


    Fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dave said:
    ---
    That's how propaganda works.
    ---

    I yield to your superior experience with propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dave, one hardly thinks you have a problem with insults, since you employ them all the time against your opponents. This is no great secret.

    I actually said you were going back on your word, which you regularly do, and I employed the term "vow" with respect to the OT Law, which is a bit wider in application than manner in which you're using it. Of course, you are welcome to your shoddy, amateur, et.al. exegesis any day.

    The long and short of it, Dave, is that you can't keep your own word, and when we call you out on it, you resort to equivocation. That's typical. We let you do it, because all it does is prove you are as starved for attention as John Loftus. The two of you are two peas in a pod.

    I said what I said in my last comment precisely because I knew you couldn't keep you mouth shut, and I said it to draw out the "real" Dave, not the one who so humbly pledged to pray for me earlier today. Thanks for playing.

    As for "documentation," Dave, you're the one who selectively quoted what I originally wrote on TF's blog...not me. So, don't complain about documentation when you're the one editing it down to suit yourself. Thou Hypocrite.

    You can't resist defending your own honor...although a rusted blade cannot be tarnished.

    One more word, Dave, and you'll be deleted, just like many a dishonest opponent before you. I don't have time to play feed the troll with you. This isn't a forum for you to post ad nauseum and ad infinitum. This is where I get my say. You are here at my deference, which I am now withdrawing. I delete trolls. You're a troll. Care to try my patience? Back to your bridge, troll. Back, back. The power of Christ compels you! The power of Christ compels you!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actual statement (taken out of context) by Dave Armstrong:
    "Facts and documentation and the truth of the matter are absolutely irrelevant."

    ... and if I quoted that statement, without telling people I took it out of context, as Mr. Armstrong did to Mr. Bridges' statements ... what would that make me?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now, let's try one that's not taken out of context: "I have no problem talking to anybody, or being friendly, or answering questions, etc. "

    But over at Mr. Swan's blog, Mr. Armstrong couldn't answer the simple question about whether he uses "Christian" as synonymous with "saved."

    1) I asked the question once (link)

    (I got the evasion: "Protestant baptism is valid, sacramental, and regenerative.")

    2) I asked the question again (link)

    (I got the excuse: "I don't debate anti-Catholics anymore, per my above explanation. You had your chance to engage in a live chat debate with me about the definition of Christian and you declined, carping on and on, as you do, about your contention that I am not a bona fide orthodox Catholic in the first place. I won't be baited into it here.")

    3) I posed the question a third time in the form of incredulity over his twice failure to answer the question (link)

    (I got the excuse: "I'm through debating all anti-Catholics, in terms of working through issues back and forth. You know that full well. You saw me reiterate it in this thread. Yet you tried to bait me into a discussion on the very same topic. Surely you are not so ignorant as to not know the huge vistas of debate that open up when throwing out even one gigantic term like "saved." Surely you are not so naive as to not know that there can be no short answer to that. A short answer would lead to more of your prodding, and then there we are: right back into a debate situation that I have already stated is out of the question, after 12 or so years of trying to have cordial, reasonable discussions with anti-Catholics like yourself.")

    4) Again I prodded Dave to try to get a straight answer out of him (link)

    (Got no answer.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. 5) And again (link)

    (Got the rebuff: "Psychological (baiting) tactics don't work with me, TAO. I don't play those games. Theology is a serious matter and we should all respect it as such.")

    6) Still, I did not give up trying to get my question answered but tried once again (link)

    (got no answer)

    7) Tried once more (link)

    (I got a personal remark, but no answer: "I notice that you are quite odd (and oddly, inexplicably uncomprehending)." - emphasis original)

    8) I pushed once more for an answer to the question (link)

    (Dave simply references two of his previous non-answers - the excuse in response to try #3 and to the first of a series of lengthy comments in defense of the misleading label "anti-catholic")

    I really think that any reasonable person would say that his claim: "I have no problem talking to anybody, or being friendly, or answering questions, etc. " simply isn't true. How many chances do I Have to give this guy to be able say that such a claim is a lie?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dave can't even follow a simple request.

    He can't keep his big mouth shut.

    So, he posts once to say goodbye...

    He takes advantage of my absence to insult TF again.

    So, Dave is now deleted in toto from this thread.

    Dave is also banned from this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey, where are all the people ripping on T-Blog asking Dave about his Catholic integrity and respect for other people?

    (Darn these wascally one-sided wascals!)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Two more posts from Dave...made in mockery at that.

    Dave, you don't get the last word here. I do.

    Want to complain? Use your own blog. Go ahead, rant away. You are banned from this thread. Any further posts from you here will be taken into the record as an affirmation that everything said about you here is true.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wonder what kind of respect Dave would have for someone who engages in ban evasion at the forum he moderates. Probably less than we have for this ban evader.

    ReplyDelete
  15. True...thank you, Dave for proving that you are, indeed, the very definition of the factious man in Titus. For somebody who claims we lie about him, with every passing word, you make our case for us. I'm more than happy to keep deleting your posts.

    ReplyDelete