Adomnan said:The truth apparently hurts Dave, as he immediately deleted my comment. But now the world knows what he tried to hide.
---
This is enough to put you in the "nutjob" category. Anyone who believes that YEC is "credible" is a kook.
---
Adomnan, have you ever heard of me before?
Nope.
But Dave thinks so highly of me that he's placed me "Among Leading Online Anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists." I'm leading the pack here. Right up there with Sproul and White!
It must break Dave's heart to know I don't care about him at all, that I only came here because TUAD mentioned it and I only commented because I found it so hilarious he put *ME* in another one of his stupid lists.
I can't help that he's so incompetent that he forgot how I told him three years ago (back when he called me just a "Lesser-Known Anti-Catholic") that I wasn't YEC. Check it for yourself: http://calvindude.com/dude/2007/10/02/a-lesser-known-anti-catholic/
I said on October 2, 2007:
---
I really loved this, especially since I’m not even YEC (as if YEC has any bearing on Dave Armstrong’s misuse of Scripture).
---
And now all you can do, Adomnan, is twist a comment I wrote on Triablogue. You didn't read the whole thing, and there's a *REASON* Dave didn't post the whole thing (because he knows if he posts the whole thing everyone will realize he's conducting a shell game here).
Dave doesn't care about the truth, and it's obvious you don't either. You just have an agenda, and a need to twist everything into conformity with your false beliefs.
But who am I to lecture you? Oh yeah: I'm a leading online anti-Catholic.
And you still take anything Dave says seriously? Who's the kook now?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Yet More Proof That Dave Armstrong is Dishonest
Too bad for Dave I can post my comments in a forum that receives far more than double the hits per day he gets, so when he deletes them it only means more people read them. Here's a comment I submitted:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
He also classified Jason Engwer as YEC in his original post, even though Jason is noncommittal on that issue.
ReplyDeleteI never saw the comment, let alone delete it. Now that I know about it, I'll be glad to make a whole new post of it, along with your falsehood that I deleted it.
ReplyDeleteThe latter is an honest mistake on your part, no doubt (see how easy it is to grant benefit of the doubt?), but now Pike will probably call me a liar for saying I never saw it.
So it's loads of fun no matter what happens. Always is with you guys.
I saw that Pike commented on my blog at 10:18 PM EST, "Truth hurts, don't it Dave?"
It did seem to be a strange comment. Presumably he tried to post his longer hit-comment around that time.
I had posted at 8:36 PM in the same thread, right before going downstairs to watch TV with my family for a few hours. I came back to my computer at around 10:50. So I have an alibi. Four witnesses: a wife, daughter, and two sons.
It was probably one of those things where Blogger deletes comments automatically for some reason. They were talking about it Boors All recently, trying to figure out why comments were disappearing.
But of course, I get no benefit of the doubt from Pike. If his rotgut disappears, I must have deleted it; therefore, it is "more proof" that I am "Dishonest."
And more fun for my readers. Thanks!
The sad thing, Dave, is that you might actually be telling the truth. Blogger does weird things.
ReplyDeleteBut when you're threatening TUAD and have already deleted TFan's comments, and when I post the comment and it *appears* on your blog but an hour later it is the only post that's gone, then all I have to go by is the fact that you're a dishonorable man.
If it were someone else, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. But you used up all the doubt I could give you long ago. After you cry wolf enough, it's your fault I don't trust you.
Gee...I actually feel kinda put off by this post.
ReplyDeletePeter Pike gets on Dave Armstrong's "Leading Online Anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists" list, and the best I can do is make Dave's "Rabidly Anti-Catholic Zealot" list.
What does a guy need to do in order to move up through the ranking system?
In Him,
CD
CD,
ReplyDeleteNo kidding. I was just musing that over the past three years, I've now posted exactly 5 blog entries on Catholicism. Three of them were responses to Dave Armstrong attacking me. One was a St. Patrick's Day reference, and the other was a funny picture of a fire that someone claimed looked like JPII.
Clearly, I am the epitome of anti-Catholicism here. Nay, I am obsessed by it and spend every waking moment scouring the internet to find what Dave's accused me of this time.
Dave is a blowhard and a buffoon. I've wasted enough energy on him to last another year now.
BTW, those 5 posts include this one.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like that if you just simply and quietly mention that you don't agree with Catholic theology, then that's enough to get you tagged as being a mad, rabid, raving anti-Catholic bigot.
ReplyDeleteIt's almost like if you just simply and quietly mention that you don't agree with gay marriage and then that gets you tagged as a raving homophobic bigot.
Why can't folks disagree with something without being called extremist names?
I agree with your principle, TUAD, but you have it exactly backwards. Pike is the one who has been slinging accusations around (look at the title of this blasted post!), not I. I even stated that I thought he made a simple honest mistake. He could have retracted it and removed it and it would have been all over. But he can't do that because I am involved, and so I MUST be wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut he insists on leaving this garbage up, and in believing that I am dishonest. You did it yourself. You said I argued in bad faith; I called you on it, you asked where you said I was a liar, and I produced the dictionary definition, which you completely ignored.
Yet you contend that we are making all the personal attacks and accusing folks of bigotry? Steve Hays is on the record on this very blog, calling me "evil"; saying I have an "evil character"; that I am a "schizophrenic," etc. But that's all fine and dandy. If you don't think it is, then you can protest against it in this very combox.
I talk to people who disagree with Catholicism all the time and have no trouble at all. One Calvinist who goes by Pilgrimsarbour, and I have great dialogues all the time.
And that's because he has sense enough to know that Catholicism is also Christian. He disagrees with it, but he doesn't take the ridiculous step of denying that it is Christian. Therefore, we can dialogue normally, with complete cordiality.
Dave still get's it all wrong. I am anti-Dave Armstrong.
ReplyDeleteHe's the one who thinks he's the definition of "Catholic."
And, Dave, I'm leaving everything up because it shows what a pompous ass you are, nothing more. (Besides, I'm not convinced I did make a mistake either, since you have the character of a charlatan and you are the kind of person who would delete a post and claim Blogger did it.) Anyone can read our exchange and see that for themselves.
But you really do need to get therapy, Dave. This is not an insult. This is an honest assessment. I've never met anyone with as over-inflated ego as you have. Everything, everywhere, is always about you. It's like the world is a giant conspiracy. If I sneeze, it's because of you. If I quote something Steve says, it's because I'm an anti-Catholic.
Doesn't your pathetic little world ever get boring for you? Expand your horizons. Turn off your computer and leave your basement occasionally. Then you'll see that the world doesn't revolve around you, and you are not some great mystic champion for the Truth. You are a lesser-known wannabe who's only claim to fame is crying a lot about nothing.
You're not on my radar, Dave. I don't follow you. I don't seek out your posts. I don't read your blog. And before you start soiling yourself with how I wrote this post, I merely point out how easy it is for your obviously diseased mind to forget this was a response to your slanderous post about me.
I didn't initiate your post calling me an anti-Catholic YEC. I did't go to your computer and pen those words.
You did.
Now deal with it.
Today, it was absolutely proved that I didn't delete the comment that Pike claims I deleted, thus providing compelling "proof" that I am allegedly "dishonest." I put a post up explaining all that:
ReplyDeletehttp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/09/bloggers-spam-function-deletes-some.html
Someone explained on my blog how to access the Blogger spam folder. I went over there and found Pike's comment. It occurred at 10:01 PM EST on 9-23-10. It's now restored in the YEC thread, along with six others in the same thread and five others elsewhere.
Sorry to disappoint the conspiratorialists in these parts. Ironically, 8 of the 12 comments placed in the spam folder were from Catholics, not Protestants.
There is no way that I know of to go back and re-insert a post from the past, with the original date and time and original person who posted it.
If it is possible to do that, I know nothing about it (and I doubt that it is possible: if it is, someone can tell me how it works). Therefore, if anyone sees the re-added post in its original place, this comprises proof, in my mind, that:
1) I never deleted it, and
2) that it was indeed in the spam folder (placed there automatically by Blogger, not myself), so that when I okayed it, it reappeared in its original place.
Go see it for yourself:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/09/young-earth-creationism-among-leading.html?showComment=1285293672868#c5278647253507957241
Seeing is believing! And a lie and slander of another person is a lie and a slander. A=a.
Pike again has a chance to repent and make this right. Will he do so?
Or he can dig in even deeper, like Nixon and Clinton during their scandals, and make this a hundred times worse than it ever had to be.
Today, it was absolutely proved that I didn't delete the comment that Pike claims I deleted, thus providing compelling "proof" that I am allegedly "dishonest." I put a post up explaining all that, a little while ago.
ReplyDeleteSomeone explained on my blog how to access the Blogger spam folder. I went over there and found Pike's comment. It occurred at 10:01 PM EST on 9-23-10. It's now restored in the YEC thread, along with six others in the same thread and five others elsewhere.
Sorry to disappoint the conspiratorialists in these parts. Ironically, 8 of the 12 comments placed in the spam folder were from Catholics, not Protestants.
There is no way that I know of to go back and re-insert a post from the past, with the original date and time and original person who posted it.
If it is possible to do that, I know nothing about it (and I doubt that it is possible: if it is, someone can tell me how it works). Therefore, if anyone sees the re-added post in its original place, this comprises proof, in my mind, that:
1) I never deleted it, and
2) that it was indeed in the spam folder (placed there automatically by Blogger, not myself), so that when I okayed it, it reappeared in its original place.
You can go see it for yourself in the thread. Seeing is believing! And a lie and slander of another person is a lie and a slander. A=a. Pike again has a chance to repent and make this right. Will he do so? Or he can dig in even deeper, like Nixon and Clinton during their scandals, and make this a hundred times worse than it ever had to be.
Dave (since my last two posts disappeared).
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong: "You did it yourself. You said I argued in bad faith; I called you on it, you asked where you said I was a liar, and I produced the dictionary definition, which you completely ignored."
ReplyDeleteI'm going to call you on something. From something you wrote.
You wrote elsewhere: "I don't define anti-Catholic as "bigot" (never have, and you should have known that long before now, since I have reiterated it times without number), but OTOH, when one looks at what anti-Catholics say about me (with Pike parroting the party line that I am mentally ill and narcissistic and an inveterate liar), it's sure understandable why one would conclude that many of them are indeed bigots against Catholics."
Dave Armstrong, now please pay attention.
I'm going to take your words and transpose them so that your accusation against me gets turned back upon you.
"I don't define "arguing in bad faith" as "lying", but OTOH, when one looks at Dave Armstrong's record, it's sure understandable why one would conclude that he does lie."
It's irrelevant how you personally define a word. Words are not purely subjective entities. I showed you from several dictionaries what "bad faith" means, but you didn't care. Apparently, you didn't even know what the definition was. You just ignored that and blithely went on your way.
ReplyDelete"Anti-Catholicism" has long been in usage in scholarly circles. It is true that often it is used as a pejorative, for an intolerant or bigoted person (know-nothings burning down Catholic Churches in the 1850s, etc.), but there is also a doctrinal definition of the word (as I have shown many times).
If anti-Catholics are (often) so dim-witted that they can't recognize that many words have more than one meaning, then again, that is their problem, not mine. I'm operating on the objective fact of a legitimate definition, that I utilize in my work. It didn't come from me.
As for my supposed "record" of lying, no one has ever shown that. I have refuted the lies attempted against me time and again, and now my critics have become laughingstocks and self-parodies, with their pathetic record of verbal diarrhea and droning charges of schizophrenia, narcissism, lying, deception, and so forth. Pike is the latest to make an absolute fool of himself.
People can say whatever they like,m but proving it is something else altogether.
That's why Pike's current charges were perfect as a test case, to expose the mentality. He claims I am a dishonest liar because he thinks I deleted his comment (which he regarded as "proof"). I have proven that I did not at all; that it was the Blogger spam function (something even you mentioned in a thread: and your own comment about it was removed (and now returned to the thread).
But he won't retract that. He's too proud. That would be the right thing to do, so he refuses to do it. Because I'm the wicked, despised "Romanist" and papist Dave Armstrong I can't possibly be right. No one can ever admit that! After all, the wrath of Bishop White, D.T. King et al would come down on their heads, just as it did against Tim Enloe when he dared to disagree with them.
A person can be a clone and a sheep and choose to parrot nonsense from comrades, or they can think for themselves and not follow a pack of lies just because it is fashionable; they can judge a person based on facts and truths and reality, rather than propaganda and myths and party prejudices.
This is your own choice when it comes to me, and the stupid charges being flung about. You can believe them simply because they are out there (like Pike's ludicrous hogwash) or you can think for yourself and figure out if what I say about Blogger's spam function is true or not.
You can show some guts and integrity, like Pilgrimsarbour, or you can be a clone and a sheep.
It's irrelevant how you personally define a word. Words are not purely subjective entities. I showed you from several dictionaries what "bad faith" means, but you didn't care. Apparently, you didn't even know what the definition was. You just ignored that and blithely went on your way.
ReplyDelete"Anti-Catholicism" has long been in usage in scholarly circles. It is true that often it is used as a pejorative, for an intolerant or bigoted person (know-nothings burning down Catholic Churches in the 1850s, etc.), but there is also a doctrinal definition of the word (as I have shown many times).
If anti-Catholics are (often) so dim-witted that they can't recognize that many words have more than one meaning, then again, that is their problem, not mine. I'm operating on the objective fact of a legitimate definition, that I utilize in my work. It didn't come from me.
As for my supposed "record" of lying, no one has ever shown that. I have refuted the lies attempted against me time and again, and now my critics have become laughingstocks and self-parodies, with their pathetic record of verbal diarrhea and droning charges of schizophrenia, narcissism, lying, deception, and so forth. Pike is the latest to make an absolute fool of himself.
People can say whatever they like,m but proving it is something else altogether.
That's why Pike's current charges were perfect as a test case, to expose the mentality. He claims I am a dishonest liar because he thinks I deleted his comment (which he regarded as "proof"). I have proven that I did not at all; that it was the Blogger spam function (something even you mentioned in a thread: and your own comment about it was removed (and now returned to the thread).
But he won't retract that. He's too proud. That would be the right thing to do, so he refuses to do it. Because I'm the wicked, despised "Romanist" and papist Dave Armstrong I can't possibly be right. No one can ever admit that! After all, the wrath of Bishop White, D.T. King et al would come down on their heads, just as it did against Tim Enloe when he dared to disagree with them.
A person can be a clone and a sheep and choose to parrot nonsense from comrades, or they can think for themselves and not follow a pack of lies just because it is fashionable; they can judge a person based on facts and truths and reality, rather than propaganda and myths and party prejudices.
This is your own choice when it comes to me, and the stupid charges being flung about. You can believe them simply because they are out there (like Pike's ludicrous hogwash) or you can think for yourself and figure out if what I say about Blogger's spam function is true or not.
You can show some guts and integrity, like Pilgrimsarbour, or you can be a clone and a sheep.
Dave Armstrong is just a walking self-parody.
ReplyDeleteHe complains about his comments being deleted on other people's blogs, then he has the hypocritical gall to delete my comments.
If his subjective tastes don't like my comments, then he needs to consistently grant that other people may subjectively not like his comments either and that's why they get deleted.
Dave Armstrong is a hypocrite.
If anyone would like a copy of the post and thread that Dave WeakDeak wrote Is Peter Pike an Anti-Catholic Presbyterian? Yes, then please e-mail me at truthunites@hotmail.com.
ReplyDeleteI'll send it to you as it was before Dave WeakDeak started deleting comments.
You can then examine the thread as it really was instead of the chopped-up, slanted version that Dave WeakDeak is peddling.
Dave WeakDeak also deleted his own comments where he falsely accused me of being "anti-Catholic".
ReplyDeleteI challenged him on it and requested that he retract his false accusation.
He refused, and threatened to delete my comments if I asked him to retract again.
I wonder if his deleting of my comments and of his false accusations is his way of issuing a retraction without losing face.
Dave still doesn't realize just how little I care about him. Since he occupies the throne of his own universe, he thinks I place him there in mine too. With therapy and strong medication, he might be cured of his delusion.
ReplyDelete