Thursday, January 21, 2010

Dave Armstrong Responds to Dave Armstrong (Part One) (UPDATED!!!)

[James] White man came across the sea, he brought us pain and misery…

This just in from the Associated Press: Dave Armstrong Is Trying to Set The Stage For the Apparent First Degree Murder of The Remaining 12.8% of His Credibility, And Splits Atoms…With His Mind

Uncle Davey sez:
So now we have the high privilege of being flies on the wall in Steve and Jason's (smoke-filled?) back room consultations regarding how to deal with me.
It’s almost too easy to immediately point out that Armweak admits to being a fly here. But anyone can see that as plain as day, so I’m going to focus on other aspects of this passage that are just as plainly wrong but that you’re too stupid to catch on your own.

First, we don’t have any record in the early church about any such thing as “back rooms” let alone evidence in that patristic record about the existence of them being “smoke-filled”! Perhaps King David was too busy inhaling to read what Saint Chrysanthemum said:
Yea, verily, upon the waters was cast thine blessed magnificent gaze, whereupon the role of our eternal bliss was understood to be merely the foretaste of the divine footprint left upon the shore of our shipwrecked faith. This shipwreck harkening back to the Apostle Paul himself, who was but one of many such Apostles to have been shipwrecked in faith.
The conclusion, obviously, is that when Davey speaks about his “high privilege” to be in a “smoke-filled” room, it is an obvious reference to reefer. Cheech & Chong would be green with envy, if they only knew who Armweak was. But no, it’s me, you see, who has put himself at the center of attention once more—not Dave! Of course not him. I’m just minding my own business, getting attacked by James White and TAO, and he has to come out of nowhere to steal my lettuce.

Armstrong forgets the most important thing. The motto of Catholic Answers: Twice the length, half the thought. That is the key to a proper relationship with Mary.

“BigMac” Armstrong says:
Isn't it glorious?
And here we see his prime motivation for everything. Personal glory. If it’s not glorious, then what’s the point? On this, St. Iguanata agreed, for he said in his well-known pamphlet Glorious, Is It Not?:
Indeed it is glorious.
But as well all know, he was writing in the context of rebutting the attacks of the Herculeans who claimed that Aries, who mistakenly thought that the Son was made not begotten, was more glorious than the Donaldists, who had yet to find a toupee. This is all plain and obvious to anyone who would spend the time to read the texts in their original English.

Lil Strong also said:
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would be green with envy at the tortured logic, historical revisionism, and spin being spun and manufactured here.
But this is absurd because everyone knows that Reid and Pelosi are both against torture. It is quite telling when an apologist who claims to have the backing that Dave Armystrong claims cannot even get this simple political point right. Anyone paying attention for even the last 37 seconds would have known that. Dave Armstrong displays his ignorance to everyone, and doesn’t even seem to care about it. But this is typical of Anti-Dave Armstrongians in general. After all, they wouldn’t be Anti-Dave Amrstongians if they paid attention. No, they’d be Dave Armstrong like me if they paid attention. And you can read all about it in my 1,376 page e-book, Dave Armstrongs Like Me: Why Patrick Madrid Is Going to Hell available for free when you purchase any spa through this exclusive web offer.

“I Know Lance Armstrong, and You’re No Lance” Armstrong wrote:
It's me, you see, who isn't answering comprehensively (were you duped into thinking otherwise, in reading my five lengthy replies: one / two / three / four / five)?
“It’s me,” says Prophet Navystrong. It’s always about you. On the other hand, it is refreshing to see an Anti-Dave Armstrongian apologist who can count to five. But if Armstrong thinks those responses are “lengthy” then he’s even more out of touch than even I realized. (Yes, I admit, I may have erred in considering him more intelligent than it appears he now is.) I mean, if you want to talk about length, I haven’t even gotten through his first paragraph and see how long this post is? Thus far, I’ve given 7249 words in response to Dave’s 82 words. That’s 5,681,247% longer. Give it up, Davey. You’re a rank amateur.

It’s like the old aphorism that St. Thomas the Divide once said: “ Anything can be expounded upon to great length as long as you ignore brevity.” Thomas said that, I agree with it, that settles it. You can keep your “brevity is the soul of wit” bunk for yourself, Weakstrongleg. For you have neither soul nor wit.

I can’t take it anymore. It has become increasingly obvious that Dave Armstrong is nothing but anti-Dave Armstrong. So I am going to implement a rule. From this point on, I will no longer interact with him, or any other anti-Dave Armstrongians. It’s simply not worth my time or effort any longer.

Unca Dave said:
I'm providing merely "copy/paste filler and dodgy replies" and am not "actually responsive."
This is why I refuse to interact with anti-Dave Armstrongians. They have no shame at all! He even admits that all he’s doing is providing copy/past filler and is not even pretending not to be not actually responsive. He’s proud of this! How do you deal with such a hard-headed person as that? Truly, I am left with the words St. Apostanatous said:
In those days there was a man well-known by the people, and his name was Steve.
Uncle Dave finally bothers to conclude his paragraph by saying:
Thus, Jason would be well-advised to split, according to "Whopper" Hays.
It is a well-known fact that Dave Armstrong thinks he can split atoms with his mind. Yet when we see what he considers to be atoms (Jason, anyone?) it becomes more than apparent that the only thing he has split is his personality.

I am hereby reinstituting my rule of not talking with anti-Dave Armstrongians like Dave Armstrong.

Dave Armstrong said:
It's supremely important in anti-Catholic apologetics, to construct a clever rationale / spin / sophistical explanation for why one is not answering and doesn't wish to continue not answering, while pretending all the while that one is doing so, and that the other guy ain't doin' what in fact the one splittin' ain't doin'. If I've seen it once, I've seen it (literally) a hundred times.
Legstrong really shouldn’t write while looking into a mirror. Aside from the risk of cutting his bare feet after the mirror shatters (literally), one only needs to take a look at his chops to see that such an image would turn anyone delusional. It is therefore not all that unapparent as to why his above non-answering answer would not make much sense, if you’re not expecting to be the one not splitting atoms with your mind, but instead you are not the one who didn’t see it coming. If I’ve said this once, I’ve said it (literally) a thousand times, just in this paragraph. But again, don’t take my word for it. As Platypus the Elder said:
After careful consideration of the literalness inherent in the claims adjudicated before the throne of the Almighty Herself, it was apparent that Mary was indeed the right and only Heir to the Florida Keys. Thus, anyone who would beseech her aid in times of crisis must know full well that the correct position is one of genuflection. Although using a whip on one’s own back wouldn’t hurt (figuratively speaking) either.
I’ve had about as much as I can stand of this guy for today. Look for parts 2 through 731 by tomorrow.


Dave Limparm responded to me today, so I'm going to revoke my vow not to communicate with anti-Dave Armstrongians, but for a very good reason. He said the following [and these are all excerpts that I’m too lazy to put ellipses in for, so just pretend there’s an occasional … in there]:
Anti-[Anti-Dave Armstrongians] can't ever deal with [anti-Dave Armstrongians] without mocking them. Now, here is the latest stuff that [mini-me] considers to be thoughtful intellectual discourse (and yes, I understand that it is intended as satire, but it is lousy, pitiful, dumb satire: something a sharp 11-year-old might try to write; in fact, I haven't been called "Armweak" since 7th grade at the very latest)
Now I admit there was some content between those two sentences. Forty-one words, if you want to get specific. But 41 words isn’t that much. I write that much before I blink in the morning, after I first turn on my computer screen and see if James White has written anything critical about me. So I can’t help but point out what a stupid response this is for someone who supposedly knows what he’s talking about to say I, Dave Armstrong, cannot deal with the likes of him “without mocking” him, and then follow it up with “but it’s lousy, pitiful, dumb satire: something a sharp 11-year-old might try to write” without even the faintest hint of irony on his part.

I also object to any anti-Dave Armstrongian to even begin to claim anything I write is remotely “thoughtful intellectual discourse.” Would I be forced to sell spa products on my website if I had that skill, which I believe would probably be marketable?

Apparently ashamed at taking a 41-word gap before contradicting himself, Armynavy continued by doing so in the same sentence.
Why do anti-Catholics almost universally feel a need to engage in these petty, hyper-stupid, imbecilic personal attacks?
It is utterly amazing how someone can engage in a petty, hyper-stupid, imbecilic personal attack while condemning petty, hyper-stupid, imbecilic personal attacks and still not see the irony in it.

Anyway, a leotard can’t change his polka dots, so I’ll let this child play in the mud while I go back to my regularly scheduled ignoring-all-anti-Dave-Armstrongians-until-I-don’t program…


  1. Let's just hope that one particle of Dave doesn't meet its antiparticle, Anti-Dave. It could mean annhialation of both known universes.

  2. The sad thing is how much of DA's writings one has to read to really appreciate this satire.

  3. It is funny to see how Dave Armstrong took offense at Dave Armstrong responding to Dave Armstrong. He goes so far to say: "Why do anti-Catholics almost universally feel a need to engage in these petty, hyper-stupid, imbecilic personal attacks?"

    Everything he responds with vindicates my satire. But that's not a surprise. If there's one thing that's certain about Dave Armstrong, it's that he will 1) say he's through with you and then 2) fight to the death against you over every perceived sleight while 3) maintaining that he is through with you despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Anyway, to respond to TF, I would agree that to get the full scope of the satire, the more familiar you are with Armstrong the more you'll see (I've had dealings with him for more than ten years now). That said, just reading his main page will demonstrate nearly all of what I satirized, for those uninitiated in the ways of Dave Armstrong.

  4. The only thing I would add to this classic post is a few lines of DA and follow them up with:

    "This post has been deleted by author"

    I have never seen a guy delete as many posts as he does.

  5. True 'nuff, Discipled by Him. Armstrong's already "disappeared" a bunch of stuff that he posted on his own blog, and now we get to pretend it never happened (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

    It shows his caliber anyway. He writes knee-jerk screeds condemning other people for what he does himself, and after his hypocrisy is pointed out to him he apparently feels enough guilt to obscure the evidence, but not enough to actually change his behavior.