DA “Non” Responds with a Non-Response Once Again!
Yesterday, James White posted on his blog a humorous caricature of Dave Armstrong that captures the essence of the situation nicely.
In keeping with his latest “resolution” DA has offered another (you guessed it) "non"-response, not only to James, but more cryptically to me. Those of you who are waiting with baited breath for the answer to DA’s second “Who Wrote This?” quiz, the answer is, I did. DA posted that in a feeble attempt to show that he’s not the only one who has gone back on his resolution.
There are just a few problems with DA's quote. The biggest problem with it is the fact that DA (as usual) rips my words out of context. I was not referring to pointing out DA’s tendency to lie and distort the fact. I will certainly continue to do that. I was instead referring to taking his theological and exegetical points seriously, and interacting with them as though he is a force to be reckoned with (he’s not). That’s what the poster on the NTRMin Discussion Forum was asking me to do. I have refused to do that for many, many years—and I always will refuse to do that because such an activity lends credence to someone who has not earned it.
So, nice try, DA—but no cigar.
DA has also posted past statements from James White demonstrating his (quite understandable) frustration in his dealings with DA. James is quite capable of defending himself on this one, but a few things strike me as obvious.
First, to my knowledge no one on this side of the aisle has ever written a “RESOLUTION STATEMENT” as DA has done—not to mention writing REPEATED resolution statements over the years. James’ words certainly are not solemn oaths as DA’s most certainly are.
Second, DA cites two examples of James’ supposed resolve of not interaction with DA on any level. But in each case, it seems to me that’s not what James is saying. In the first example it seems clear to me that James is saying he’s through dialoguing with DA on an issue—not that he won’t address DA’s inane points in a critique of his views. Also, I believe the situation itself has changed, and James called attention to this within his latest critique of DA's book; namely, that DA now has a real published book, whereas before he did not. Obviously, one can critique a written work without “dialoguing” with that person.
In the second example, it is clear that James makes a significant qualification to his resolve not to interact with DA; namely, that he won’t do it “UNLESS it benefits a large number of folks with a minimum amount of invested time, and has the longest lasting results.” In this case the situation is that DA’s work has been published, and now has exposure to a lot of people. Obviously, James’ decision to critique that work is well within the stated qualifications of his previous “resolution.” An oral debate, as James mentions, would also fit that qualification. Hence DA's citation of James’ words, as though he has broken some kind of “resolution,” falls to the ground.
Nice try, DA—but still no cigar.
I can’t help but point out the obvious, however; that in responding to us once again, DA continues to violate his own RESOLUTION. That should demonstrate to all that DA’s word is meaningless. He has no problem with lying, so long as he thinks he can pin that same charge on someone else—that way he doesn’t “appear” to be lying. What a sad spectacle.
In keeping with his latest “resolution” DA has offered another (you guessed it) "non"-response, not only to James, but more cryptically to me. Those of you who are waiting with baited breath for the answer to DA’s second “Who Wrote This?” quiz, the answer is, I did. DA posted that in a feeble attempt to show that he’s not the only one who has gone back on his resolution.
There are just a few problems with DA's quote. The biggest problem with it is the fact that DA (as usual) rips my words out of context. I was not referring to pointing out DA’s tendency to lie and distort the fact. I will certainly continue to do that. I was instead referring to taking his theological and exegetical points seriously, and interacting with them as though he is a force to be reckoned with (he’s not). That’s what the poster on the NTRMin Discussion Forum was asking me to do. I have refused to do that for many, many years—and I always will refuse to do that because such an activity lends credence to someone who has not earned it.
So, nice try, DA—but no cigar.
DA has also posted past statements from James White demonstrating his (quite understandable) frustration in his dealings with DA. James is quite capable of defending himself on this one, but a few things strike me as obvious.
First, to my knowledge no one on this side of the aisle has ever written a “RESOLUTION STATEMENT” as DA has done—not to mention writing REPEATED resolution statements over the years. James’ words certainly are not solemn oaths as DA’s most certainly are.
Second, DA cites two examples of James’ supposed resolve of not interaction with DA on any level. But in each case, it seems to me that’s not what James is saying. In the first example it seems clear to me that James is saying he’s through dialoguing with DA on an issue—not that he won’t address DA’s inane points in a critique of his views. Also, I believe the situation itself has changed, and James called attention to this within his latest critique of DA's book; namely, that DA now has a real published book, whereas before he did not. Obviously, one can critique a written work without “dialoguing” with that person.
In the second example, it is clear that James makes a significant qualification to his resolve not to interact with DA; namely, that he won’t do it “UNLESS it benefits a large number of folks with a minimum amount of invested time, and has the longest lasting results.” In this case the situation is that DA’s work has been published, and now has exposure to a lot of people. Obviously, James’ decision to critique that work is well within the stated qualifications of his previous “resolution.” An oral debate, as James mentions, would also fit that qualification. Hence DA's citation of James’ words, as though he has broken some kind of “resolution,” falls to the ground.
Nice try, DA—but still no cigar.
I can’t help but point out the obvious, however; that in responding to us once again, DA continues to violate his own RESOLUTION. That should demonstrate to all that DA’s word is meaningless. He has no problem with lying, so long as he thinks he can pin that same charge on someone else—that way he doesn’t “appear” to be lying. What a sad spectacle.
posted by NA at 8:24 AM
<< Home