"Rhology" Deletes My Comments at John Q. Doe's Boors All Blog...This is one of a long line of examples of ridiculous anti-Catholic behavior and blatant double standards...This is the same-old same-old intellectual cowardice from our anti-Catholic friends. I was booted off of Eric Svendsen's discussion board when it was the anti-Catholic place to be, some years ago. James White or David T. King have kicked me off of White's chat room many times (when I had done nothing whatever wrong). Now Rhology adds himself to the honor roll of "delete 'em when ya can't talk rationally with 'em" folks, along with John Q. Doe and Steve Hays (whom I thought till recently was pleasantly immune to this cowardly trait).
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/07/rhology-deletes-my-comments-at-john-q.html
Actually, that's not a double standard. That's a Davidic standard. No one deletes more comments by Dave Armstrong than...Dave Armstrong. Dear ol' Dave is an auto-delete machine.
So that's not a double standard. Rather, that's merely measuring his comments by his own yardstick. Why should Rhology et al. value Armstrong's comments more highly than Armstrong himself? If Armstrong has a habit of self-deleting dozens of his own comments, then that, by his own admission, makes him a cowardly anti-Catholic. Since Dave Armstrong regards Dave Armstrong's comments as eminently delete-worthy, who are we to take issue with his low self-estimate?
Backlinked at DefCon thanks to a reference to "rabidly anti-catholic" yours truly!
ReplyDeleteIronically, "Coram Deo," a rabidly anti-Catholic zealot, (one of many such who populate Boors All) was complaining in another thread (on 6-8-10) that Doe was slow to delete some comment that Coram didn't like.: one that "sat there publicly for hours without being summarily deleted by the blogmaster(s)." Doe (in his inimitable fashion), shot back with:
I have job, so I can't always babysit every ridiculous comment that is posted. Many people live on-line, I don't. (6:01 AM [EST], 6-9-10)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-comments-deleted-from-anti-catholic.html
I'm in full agreement with Pastor David T. King's assessment that there's no more "rabidly anti-catholic" position than that taken by the Roman communion.
In Christ,
CD
Dave Armstrong writes:
ReplyDeleteThis is the same-old same-old intellectual cowardice from our anti-Catholic friends.
a) That presumes Dave Armstrong has something intelligent to say. I'm afraid the evidence is usually to the contrary.
b) As far as I can tell, all of the sites Armstrong mentioned allow hostile comments and intellectual objections to the material they write. What tries the patience, and initiates the bans, is continuously unreasonable, rude, arrogant, etc. behavior.
The problem is that Dave doesn't want to debate substance. Instead, he wants to talk about himself. All about Dave, all the time.
ReplyDeleteThat's when I started to delete his self-infatuated comments. That's a waste of everyone's time.
If he actually has something substantive to offer, that's different. But Dave is the sun of his solar system.
"This is one of a long line of examples of ridiculous anti-Catholic behavior and blatant double standards...This is the same-old same-old intellectual cowardice from our anti-Catholic friends."
ReplyDeleteWhy endure such shabby treatment? And from "friends" no less!
Dave,
You should either shake the dust of these towns from your sandals or else seek professional treatment for your persecution complex. Either way...
"..this cowardly trait" -Dave Armstrong
ReplyDeleteThat's quite over the top, and judgmental.
I read through some of this over at DA's, and he received ample explanation why he was deleted. And that he was more than welcomed to comment on Rhology's other blog.
I learned a lot about a man these past few days, even as I interacted with him on his blog.
"But Dave is the sun of his solar system." -Steve
That's the nail being hit on the head.
It's almost too easy to pile on Dave. At least no one's brought up holy spa product yet.
ReplyDeleteOops.
Indeed, everything revolves around DA.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteIf you berate Dave for not talking about substantial things, then what's a post about "deletions," is that a substantial topic you felt you had to post about?
I assume that Dave might delete a post of his own for some reason, to fix spelling or phraseology or rewrite the post, because you can't edit blog posts after they are posted, instead you have to delete them to fix those types of things.
As for "piling on," over the years I've read the way you and J. P. Holding attempted to pile on each other on one topic, and you and Dave Armstrong, and you and Vic Reppert, and your attempt to dis the views of the growing crew at BIOLOGOS. It's that kind of thing that helped convinced me to leave the fold of Christianity. (Though I saw it happening in my study of theological history long before I saw it on the web.)
The J.P. Holding and James White discussion was also fun to read. I think Dave Armstrong and James White also got into it.
Good thing God wrote an inspired book and sent the Holy Spirit so everyone could pray and receive wisdom. That's what keeps all you Christians together round the world, instead of worshiping each in your own private churches.
EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:
ReplyDelete"If you berate Dave for not talking about substantial things, then what's a post about 'deletions,' is that a substantial topic you felt you had to post about?"
That wasn't the topic of the post. The topic of the post was whether Armstrong's allegation of a double standard is accurate. Try not to be an illiterate librarian.
"I assume that Dave might delete a post of his own for some reason, to fix spelling or phraseology or rewrite the post, because you can't edit blog posts after they are posted, instead you have to delete them to fix those types of things."
If that's what you assume, then you didn't bother to inform yourself before venturing your opinion. Over at Beggars All, Dave's has deleted every comment he original left on a particular thread. It wasn't for stylistic reasons.
"As for "piling on"...
Where in this post did I say anything about "piling on," much less express disapproval of that practice? Try not to be an illiterate librarian.
"It's that kind of thing that helped convinced me to leave the fold of Christianity."
Thanks for admitting that your apostasy had an emotional rather than rational basis.
"Good thing God wrote an inspired book and sent the Holy Spirit so everyone could pray and receive wisdom. That's what keeps all you Christians together round the world, instead of worshiping each in your own private churches."
NT Christians worshipped in different house-churches. It's not as if they all went to the same church on Sunday. And the NT documents disagreements in the Christian community.
So the NT doesn't foster the expectation that professing believers will always agree or worship together.
You're burning a straw man, Ed. You simply take your own ex-Fundy experience as your paradigm. But that has nothing to do with the NT paradigm.