DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
It's now past six hours since I documented how cathmom had apologized, and still no acceptance of it here, in Christian charity. Why should it take so long? Is it not part of Reformed Christianity to accept and acknowledge a heartfelt apology when it is offered? It was certainly part of my evangelical Christianity.
On my blog she even said she went to confession over it, so obviously she is sincere in intent. Or is that what you deny? Otherwise, why the great gap in response?
Catholics say "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" to other human beings, just like everyone else (!). It's Christianity 0101, but it seems to be such an advanced Christianity for Steve, that he doesn't grasp it. It's too much fun running down Catholics, to pause and say "I accept your apology." Pretty novel and bizarre stuff, huh Steve?
First of all, I don’t ordinarily handle communications from Dave. I normally delegate that sort of thing to my personal assistant, Pepper Potts.
Secondly, I was having dinner with Beyoncé Friday night, so I instructed Miss Potts not to disturb me unless there was some ecoanarchoterrorist attack on one of my subsidiaries.
Third, cathmom’s qualified apology is irrelevant. I never sought an apology. I wasn’t personally wronged by cathmom. I wasn’t offended by her tirade. That was never the point.
The initial point was to simply expose the quality of reasoning you typically find among lay Catholic epologists. Having succeeded, there’s nothing more to say at my end.
Fourth, why did Armstrong reedit his post to scrub all references to cathomom (“I have reposted the following remarks, that were in this combox, so as to uphold the anonymity of the woman who made them”), only to turn right around and demand a public acknowledgment on my part? If protecting her anonymity is now the priority, how's that consistent with demanding a public acknowledgement from me concerning her?
Fifth, there were several parties to this imbroglio. In addition to cathmom there’s Scott Windsor. But Windsor, rather than accepting rational correction, has chosen to dig in his heels.
So there’s nothing for me to “acknowledge” on that score, even if I was under some (imaginary) obligation to do so.
Sixth, Armstrong’s contribution would have been preferable had he not turned this into yet another pretext for self-aggrandizement. But by hogging the limelight, his intervention now looks purely opportunistic.