Dave Armstrong Now Desperately Grasping at Straws

DA's meltdown is nearly complete. Following his ceremonious, posthaste departure from the "anti-anti-catholic" apologetics scene spurred on by his utter inability to answer James White's exegetical critique of DA's "Catholic Verses," DA posted his now infamous "resolution" never to engage anti-catholics again. This, remember, was the third such resolution he has made within a five-year span; and in each case (including the most recent one) he broke that resolution almost immediately after declaring it.

My constant pointing this out to the public seems to have proved too much for poor DA. He can no longer respond to this issue (on which he's clearly been exposed), and so what does he do? He digs up an age-old, semi-tongue-in-cheek article that I wrote over five years ago, but which was not linked to my website except for a very short period of time. It's a diversion tactic. What's my "lack of charity" got to do with DA's lack of honesty? Nothing. But if DA can change the subject, then he can take the spotlight off himself and "get even" with me all at the same time.

The article DA is citing was a response to an extremely rancid and vitriolic Roman Catholic apologist, Art Sippo. Anyone who has ever had an encounter with Sippo can readily testify to what I am saying. What follows is the text from the series of emails I received (unsolicited) from Art Sippo and which prompted my short-lived article. Here is the part DA conveniently left out:

"It has come to my attention that the honor of Our Lady is being desecrated by the poltroon Eric Svendsen. Much as I loath to soil myself by dealing with him, I give him the following open challenge. . . . I am waiting. God is watching. Put up or shut up, Eric.

"Cut the nonsense, Eric. Put up or shut up. I have no desire to trade insults with you and I am even less inclined to read your ignorant ravings. . . . You know, Eric, if you were a man and not a coward, a liar, and a poltroon, you would answer my challenge. Running to others of your ilk to brag about your inability to answer a simple question just goes to show how desperate you are."

"C'mon young man. Put me in my place. Show me the quotation. If you can't do that, then even these people will be embarrassed for you. Quit stalling. Put up or shut up. . . . Eric, I asked a question. All you are doing is finding creative ways to refuse to answer it. You are insulting and arrogant. I am only giving you back the same guff you give everyone else who opposes you. I am afraid that you can dish it out but you just can't take it."

"Wait a minute there, sissy-boy. You have been called out. You don't get to be removed without either answering the challenge or conceding. I am giving you the opportunity to do the right thing or to be branded as coward. If you want to run away, it just proves that you can't defend your position, and you lose by default. You can lose with grace or disgrace. Which will it be?"

"I praise God that I am not lost in the darkness of the protestant lie and that I live in the light of Catholic truth. At least I can face my opponents with integrity and answer their questions honestly. It is what my religion has taught me to do."

"He is making a big deal out of a simple question. I am sorry if he gets offended by being challenged, but that is what happens when you strut around the net acting tough. Someone asks you to step outside and settle the matter man-to-man."

"As a soldier, I must live in a differnet [sic] world than Eric does. By running away and avoiding the issue, he is acting like a coward. He should just answer the question and be done with it. It is making him look bad."

"I know I won't ever take him seriously again. . . .The coward dies a thousand deaths; the brave man only one. . .The coward always hides behind his ego when ther [sic] real issue is the truth."

"Go slink off in the darkness of your satanic Lord's protection and hide from me, you coward. My challenge stands and you have run away shamfully [sic]. Now everyone knows what kind of creature you really are. I pity you and will pray for your conversion. . . . This whole charade of bullying Catholics in the name of evangelism is merely for your self agrandizement [sic] and egotism, isn't it? And you wonder why I have no respect for you and your fellow bigots? . . . I know who my Savior is and who is his enemy. You are in serious need of repentence [sic] before it is too late."

"Hey Eric! I got a better idea. Why don't you go tell your Mama on us and REALLY get us in trouble. Got news for you, bud. You are a public figure and you spout your nonsense on the open web. You are fair game. If you don't want to hear from me,fine. You have 2 choices. Either answer my challenge like a man, or block me with your mail controls. Meanwhile, I remain undefeated, while you...well he who snivels and runs away gets to snivel another day."

"Oooo...Pseudopodeo slithers out to insult, defame, deceive, and confuse once again! The stars are right and dead Cthulhu lies dreaming... James, give it a rest. Your little protégé, Eric the Yellow, (whom you are making twice as fit for...well you know) can fight his own battles without your mindless babbling. Until you are man enough to face me on the dais and debate mano-a-mano, I can't be bothered with you."

"Of course. Bill Jefferson Clinton (let's just call him BJ) is a good prot[estant]. . . . Art Sippo MD, Anathema, sit! Good Dog, My Anathema AMDG"

So, DA is simply misleading his readers by suggesting it was I who was being "uncharitable" in an exchange in which I was mostly minding my own business. But that's just what DA does best--he misleads, and he usually accomplishes that by focusing on half-truths (that's the "strategy of deceit" that marks the heretic). I'm certain his cronies will fall in line as they always do; but for the fairminded reader, you now have the truth.

Moreover, Dave Armstrong did not find that article by browsing my website, because although it was still on the server, it hadn't been linked to my website for about five years. Instead, he performed a site search on some key word or phrase, and pulled it up that way. But that just shows you how desperate DA really is. Who does that? Who, outside of a very desperate individual, performs a site search of someone else's writings, and decides to post an obscure piece that has absolutely nothing to do with the current issue and that isn't even posted for public viewing on the site itself?

Oh, and by the way; in all the excitement, I would hate for anyone to miss the fact that by posting this latest smokescreen DA has once again (you guessed it) violated his solemn-oath resolution.