Thursday, September 15, 2005

Neptune, the Mystic

Gustav Holst's The Planets is good all around, but the final selection on Neptune the Mystic is just, in my own [idiosyncratic?] opinion, heavenly. Possibly the most hauntingly beautiful piece of music ever. The ethereal chorus at the end gets me just as much as it did the first time I heard this sublime piece of music.

Anybody else out there agree?

23 Comments:

Blogger centuri0n said...

Holst's the Planets was the first piece of classical music that ever made sense to me. Oddly enough, I was introduced to it by a Franciscan friar who was the encyclopedic horsepower behind the classical music show we produced at my college radio station.

Good stuff.

Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:03:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Armstrong said...

Yeah, it's fabulous; one of my favorite classical pieces. I played Mars in my high school band (trombone). Good to agree on something for a change!

Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:32:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Armstrong said...

[dave = Dave Armstrong]

Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:33:00 PM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

PP: am I supposed to say something nice to Armstrong now, or should I just pretend that he didn't say anything to avoid making your blog the site of unpleasantries?

Friday, September 16, 2005 9:50:00 AM  
Blogger Daniel said...

I think Saturn is more haunting - but haunting and heavenly are two different things.

Friday, September 16, 2005 3:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Dave Armstrong said...

That's right, Frank (aka centuri0n). Heaven forbid that we ever talked like two normal, civilized human beings, even on something as uncontroversial as classical music. That would put you out, wouldn't it?

So, feeling the terrifying discomfort of such a prospect, you opt for your usual obnoxious cant (discussion of Holst as - remarkably enough - a pretext for inevitable "unpleasantries"). You take a good (or at least harmless) thing and immediately make it a dividing point. Or maybe I am somehow a dishonest scoundrel for liking The Planets?

Yet you and others of your general belief-system wonder why I would ever want to cease trying to dialogue (DIALOGUE, not merely talk, as presently) with anti-Catholics. Do you think that if you (and those like you) and I can't even talk pleasantly as two pagans or heathens could and would, about MUSIC, that we could ever constructively discuss theology?

Of course the answer is no, and I know this not just abstractly, but as the result of some 150 or more attempts at doing so, over 15 years. YOU may think that is cowardice. In fact, it is simply common sense and wise stewardship of the time that God has given me.

Friday, September 16, 2005 6:38:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Frank --- some might say that by merely being my own blog, the PP site is already a site of unpleasantries! :-O

I had to say it lest somebody else hits that hanging curveball out of the yard...

Daniel --- Venus, the Bringer of Peace is stark lovely as well. But the ethereal voices at the end of Neptune just do it for me.

Friday, September 16, 2005 8:47:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Mr Armstrong --- I deleted the thread in which you took umbrage at the wording of one of my comments. The editorial staff here [that means me] regrets the ambiguity which was truly unintentional.

At this stage, you and the Frankoman may resume your non-dialogue. :)

Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:40:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Armstrong, you peddle poison. It's difficult to 'dialogue' at any level, on any subject, without the fact that you peddle poison suffusing it all. One has to deal with the fact that you are a poison peddler before one can, with any good conscience, engage in small talk about whatever.

Saturday, September 17, 2005 7:01:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

It is the intent of the poison peddler to render normal his trade by getting others to engage in friendly small talk with him on any other subject.

It's like allowing a restraining order to be compromised. If you get a restraining order against someone because they intend assault on you, but then you invite them into your home to play Trivial Pursuit...the police and the judge no longer honor or take seriously your restraining order you went through the process to get against the person. That person has effectively gotten you to compromise the restraining order.

Your assault is to muck up God's Truth any which way you can and to defend and spread the darkness of the Kingdom of Satan. To the end of attempting to effect negatively the very salvation of souls. You have to be confronted for your assault, and you can't be allowed to comprise anything by getting those who know the truth and know the necessity for defending it to engage in 'normal' small talk with you.

Saturday, September 17, 2005 7:09:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

My two comments above are written in the context of Armstrong being a very active defender and pusher of false doctrine. If he were just a Roman Catholic and not an RC apologist then the subject matter of any conversation doesn't have to be doctrine, of course. Though at some point a Christian does have a responsibility to witness the truth...

Saturday, September 17, 2005 9:58:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Of course with all the above now on the table one can talk with Dave A. about anything at all!

If you like Holst...you may find that you like Anton Bruckner (a Roman Catholic, but not an RC apologist).

With Bruckner it's important to hear his works done by good conductors, and in the right editions (regarding especially the monumental 8th symphony).

classic but mono:

Furtwangler
Knappertsbusch

classic modern (ADD and DDD):

Jochum
Karajan

For editions of the 8th you're not hearing the 8th unless you're hearing the Haas edition. The Novak edition for all the other symphonies is OK, but not for the 8th. (For historical reference: Haas is the Nazi edition; Novak is the de-Nazification edition. I'm not joking. Brucker's symphonies were 'de-Nazified' after the war. The differences only concern the most astute ears, but in the 8th the differences are striking to even a first time listener.)

Saturday, September 17, 2005 10:09:00 AM  
Anonymous MR. dave[-id] "well poisoner" armstrong said...

Good for you, PP. Thanks. Now let the obligatory insults from others continue . . . surely y'all have better things to do than obsess over me.

It's good to know (for my own information) that I am in a more sublime category of slimy, wascally evil, being not only a Catholic (which is terrible enough but forgivable), but actually -- I tremble to even utter the horrific words -- a Catholic apologist (OH MY!)!!! -- that which is the very height of sinister darkness.

I'll have to ask God how to get me out of this evil occupation right away so I can discuss Bruckner with an often vulgar and profane bigot who has been trolling my blog for a year . . . . Lessee; if I admit that I am a demonic snake then ct will be more than happy to intelligently discuss classical music with me. Very interesting. I ask: who could pass up such a gracious offer?

Christian unity is wonderful, isn't it? What a witness to the world we give, with this kind of claptrap going on regularly.

Forgive me for mentioning my love of Holst. I should have known that this would turn into another mudslinging idiot-fest.

Saturday, September 17, 2005 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Look how you even change the words and meaning of poisoner from 'poison peddler' to 'well poisoner'. Two totally different things and activities. This unconscious shifting of meaning is purely devil-inspired and done regularly by RC apologists. (You even put it in quotes as if that was what was originally said.)

"God did not say..." says the snake... "You shall not surely die..."

Once one knows the truth the poison you peddle, however juvenile a manner you peddle it in, is purely odious and worthy of the most robust exposure and condemnation.

ps- Let's see how long your long-stated allegiance to free speech lasts when you now have your haloscan and banning abilities. One post from me will test it... Yes, I see you there in the shadow of that condemned building. In the dark, dank shadow...

Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:58:00 PM  
Anonymous dave armstrong said...

LOL God bless all here. I assume in charity that the fathomless imbecility of ct doesn't represent the Protestant Christianity of those who frequent this blog. Heaven help us all if it does.

Saturday, September 17, 2005 2:10:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Armstrong has discernably hardened in the last few months. He's lost his old "I'm just an innocent, amiable guy over here" persona. Same false doctrine, perhaps a new, unconscious realization the end is near and there's much of the devil's work to be done...

Saturday, September 17, 2005 2:41:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Quick, somebody play 'good cop'...

Saturday, September 17, 2005 2:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good cop here,

Dave. Dave, how're you doin'? Smoke? No? How 'bout a Ho-Ho? We got a machine outside. No? Just want to make you comfortable. The thing is, Dave, you're hangin' with some bad people. People who can take you down to a bad place. We suspect you're not fully in tune with their regime, if you know what I mean? If you had your choice, you'd probably not be runnin' with this crowd, huh, Dave? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe if you had a new start. Some educational opportunities. Hm? OK. You're keeping silence. The 'father' you mentioned on your website (good website, by the way, Dave; sharp-lookin' website), well, we kind of suspect this 'father' is the one who introduced you into this lifestyle. We think you should know that this individual is wanted for a long sheet of crime. This guy and his operation he represents has committed more crime than all the gangsters and gangs in the history of the good ol' U.S.of A. put together.

"More than Stalin and Hitler put together!!" [bad cop yelling into the room from a half-opened door]

Alright, alright, bad cop. It's my turn with Mr. Dave here. Don't worry 'bout him, Dave... Too much coffee (hee hee). So... ... Ever see one of these? [puts a Bible on the table, Dave starts shivering] It's the antidote for the darkness that has captured you, Dave. Right there. All you got to do is read it! Just download it. With it, you can put all those bad guys in their place, Dave. And where they're goin'? You won't be goin' there...

[bad cop getting ready to re-enter room, with James White and a bullhorn]

Saturday, September 17, 2005 3:08:00 PM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

I'd like to make a copula-three points for the record:

(1) ct is banned from my blog because he/she (we don't really know which) is a complete troll who cannot interact with anyone at any level without insults. That ct offends Armstrong is no surprise because ct offends everyone.

(2) I wouldn't have given the comment "dave" made here a second thought -- except that "dave" wanted to make sure that we all knew he was "dave armstrong". Let's keep in mind this is the guy who, upon receiving a detailed apology from me for any time in the past that I have used uncivil words with him he frankly treated it like something stuck to the bottom of his shoe.

(3) Armstrong, if I ever had a nice word for you, it was disintegrated about the time you demonstarted that you cannot separate the word "anti-catholic" from theological disagreements with catholicism -- even after I read Davison's Culture Wars and demonstrated that his use of the word was against anyone seeking to deny Catholics political rights -- and not merely anyone who had theological hay to make against Roman Catholic dogma. Your use of that word is like using the word "Nazi" to describe a boy scout -- because both Nazis and boy scouts wear uniforms. In the end, you're no better than ct because you cannot handle criticism without calling your adversary names.

(4) However, to be fair to Armstrong, he is the only person I know of who can take a 29-word question to site administration looking for a judgment call on how to treat him here into a 202-word apology for why he shouldn't talk to me in the first place. Do me a favor: use fewer words when you don't talk to me. It will make you a more credible person overall.

Back to PP's originally-scheduled blog. Keep it between the ditches, Armstrong. xoxox

Sunday, September 18, 2005 8:52:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Why invoke my name to make your lame points?

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:53:00 AM  
Anonymous dave armstrong said...

Greetings Turk (since Frank repeatedly refers to me as "Armstrong" I return the favor),

>I'd like to make a copula-three points for the record:

Great. Let's have a normal (non-theological) conversation. Is it possible? We both like Holst. That's a start, isn't it?

>(1) ct is banned from my blog because he/she (we don't really know which) is a complete troll who cannot interact with anyone at any level without insults. That ct offends Armstrong is no surprise because ct offends everyone.

Good. This character seems to be equally obnoxious to everyone regardless of theological affiliation, which is quite a feat.

>(2) I wouldn't have given the comment "dave" made here a second thought -- except that "dave" wanted to make sure that we all knew he was "dave armstrong".

That's right. It's a bit hard to know who I am by "Dave" and I don't believe in being anonymous. I think that is one of the sillier, more unfortunate characteristics of Internet discourse. I didn't realize it would list me as simply "Dave" and so I clarified. Sorry if you find that offensive. I guess you are as offended by that as I am tired of all the anonymity (no offense to Pee Pee, who runs this blog). So it's a wash, ain't it?

It's fascinating, though, that if I had remained anonymous, then folks here would have simply talked about music. But because I identified myself, all of a sudden I get a lecture about my nefarious, evil nature, from Mr. Troll, and then further snide remarks from you.

>Let's keep in mind this is the guy who, upon receiving a detailed apology from me for any time in the past that I have used uncivil words with him he frankly treated it like something stuck to the bottom of his shoe.

This is untrue. I accepted the apology. At the same time, I continued to refuse to interact with you, in terms of further dialogue on theological topics, because for two years my opinion had not changed; I thought you were incapable of civil discussion with Catholics, and incredibly obtuse when it came to understanding opposing arguments, including an annoying tendency to think you are a bigger expert on Catholic subjects than those who defend the Catholic faith.

I also reserved the right to be (in a sense) "skeptical" of such an apology (given our past history), until I saw the fruits of repentance, and until you were willing to face up to certain facts of our past interaction. When I pressed the matter, however, you quickly came to a point where you virtually begged me to cease writing about you, promising to do the same about me.

I kept my end of the bargain, but you came back some months later stating that you could not do so, due to my new book, which you couldn't resist reviewing. Well, I have yet to see that extensive review (you did a little bit and that was it, as far as I know), but your insults have continued on, on your blog, and on others' blogs, leading me to believe that my suspicion of your apology was correct. What good is an apology for something that one keeps doing?
I see no fruits of repentance here. Instead, you have consistently made remarks at my expense when I was not present, which is why I have concluded that it is a case of "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome: you claim to want to "get along" but your behavior suggests rank hypocrisy and equivocation.

Unfortunately, I got rid of my BlogBack comments where your comments on my blog occurred, so I cannot present a fully-documented record of what happened (not that anyone cares, anyway), but I have a record of many of your insults, for situations precisely like this, where you try to make out that I am some malicious, unforgiving person, whereas you are pure as the driven snow. I've learned to keep records, where anti-Catholics are concerned, because they have a habit of revising history. But I had enough of your comments, so that it didn't occur to me to preserve what was in BlogBack.

And there are plenty preserved on blogs. For example, these lovely, charitable sentiments from this very blog (which really prove you have repented of your insults towards me, don't they?):

*****
Welcome to the sordid world of Armstrong. He insults; you take offense; he claims "joke", but takes offense; you either continue to press the point or succumb to his demands for an apology or whatever; no apology except "St. Dave Armstrong: ore pro nobis" will suffice.

Find something better to do with your blog and your time. If you start trying to dismantle this A-bomb, you will ultimately get listed in his hall of shame and he will "refuse to deal with you".

You know all this. You've seen him do it to NTRMin, and jason, and Dr. White, and ... oh man, it's a long list. Unless you're just dying to be in his hall of shame, ignore him.

[another post] Oh yeah -- only refer to him as "Mr. Armstrong" or "Armstrong". Everything else is way too chummy for the kind of exchange that bound to occur.

(8-11-05: http://pedanticprotestant.blogspot.com/2005/08/lets-check-n-see.html)
*****

After reading a super-sarcastic piece by Steve Hays (http://pedanticprotestant.blogspot.com/2005/08/lets-check-n-see.html#112385189069265021), you (reduced to tears of hysteric laughter), added:

"Mostly I'm scandalized that Armstrong's image has not strated appearing in fried eggs, giant bank windows, and on underpass walls."

(8-13-05: http://pedanticprotestant.blogspot.com/2005/08/lets-check-n-see.html#112399394377898027)

This is all long past the time of your apology. Yet I am not allowed to not desire serious theological interaction with you? Why, then, is Pedantic Protestant within his rights to have the exact same opinion of me? Commenting on his now-deleted post "Im Talkin' to Dave" [another one, not myself], he wrote:

***
It is interesting how, despite (i) having the most limited interaction with Mr Armstrong, (ii) not desiring any interaction with Mr Armstrong, . . . (iv) That I'm not a personality conflict sort of guy . . .

(Google cache-page: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:W6Q_BFulwwAJ:pedanticprotestant.blogspot.com/2005/09/im-talkin-to-dave.html+centuri0n+dave+armstrong&hl=en)
***

So if PP is under no obligation to want to interact with me, why must I do so with you (and I would apply his number "iv" to you too)? On what basis is his decision to avoid me any essentially different from my (now three-year's old) decision to avoid you (in terms of serious theological discussion)?

>(3) Armstrong, if I ever had a nice word for you, it was disintegrated about the time you demonstarted that you cannot separate the word "anti-catholic" from theological disagreements with catholicism --

This is another lie (which, sadly, you seem to specialize in where I am concerned). Certainly you are intelligent enough to figure out by now that I make a rather well-known distinction between anti-Catholic Protestants and ecumenical Protestants (the former group denies that Catholicism is a Christian system; the latter does not).

I dialogue all the time with folks who disagree vigorously with some Catholic doctrine or other, without
denying that Catholics are as fully Christian as Protestants are (notwithstanding serious errors, as they see it, of course).

I am in a current dialogue (my 6th) with Christopher Atwood, a Lutheran, on the Sacrifice of the Mass. I've never called him an anti-Catholic. I asked him what he thought about Catholicism some months ago; he told me, and so I haven't categorized him in that way. But he vigorously disagrees with Catholic theology that we would fully expect Lutherans to disagree with.

He is only one of dozens of such people I have dialogues with (see: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ473.HTM):

Carmen Bryant (2)
Jack Dispennett (2)
E.L. Hamilton (7)
Craig Kott
Mike McMillan
David Scherer
Jerome Smith (editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and brother of a good friend of mine)
Gary DeMar
Tim Gallant (2)
S. Joel Garver (2)
Kevin Johnson (5)
"Josh" (Calvinist) (2)
Peter Leithart
Keith Mathison (2)
Paul Owen (2)
Alastair Roberts (4)
Matt Perman
Dave H. (2)
Jon Jacobson (2)
Edwin Tait (7)
"BWL" (2)
Stuart Floyd
Kristo Miettinen (4)
Eric Phillips (3)
Sogn Mill-Scout (6)

Kevin Temple and "Grubb" have written many comments on my blog. They are treated respectfully by everyone there, and I don't call them anti-Catholics, either, because they are not. But certain people are (including you). It's simply a fact.

I've never referred to any of these people as "anti-Catholics," yet we've debated many topics where Protestants and Catholics disagree. Even Tim Enloe, with whom I have had dozens of attempted dialogues, wasn't placed on my "Anti-Catholics" page, excepting a short period where I thought he had crossed the line (since then I removed his name).

>even after I read Davison's Culture Wars and demonstrated that his use of the word was against anyone seeking to deny Catholics political rights -- and not merely anyone who had theological hay to make against Roman Catholic dogma. Your use of that word is like using the word "Nazi" to describe a boy scout -- because both Nazis and boy scouts wear uniforms.

That's sheer nonsense, and again, unless you are a stupid idiot (which I would NOT say about you) you must know that, or else are too blinded by your longstanding hostility towards me to see the truth of the matter.

We already discussed this back when. I've always acknowledged that one use of the term anti-Catholic was in the political, social sense you decribe. Anyone who knows anything about history knows that. I never denied it.

But I have also shown that there is a theological use of the term as well, including by leading evangelical sociologist of religion James Davison Hunter himself. This was pointed out to you, but you choose to ignore it and emphasize only the political / prejudiced definition. I freely recognize both. As for Hunter, this is what he wrote in his book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (New York: HarperCollins, 1991):

"Understanding the American experience evan as late as the nineteenth century requires an understanding of the critical role played by Anti-Catholicism in shaping the character of politics, public education, the media, and social reform . . . Catholics were regarded by Protestants as heretics who had perverted the true faith." (p. 35)

". . . although much of the anti-Catholic hostility was born out of economic rivalry and ethnic distrust, it took expression primarily as religious hostility -- as a quarrel over religious doctrine, practice, and authority. (p. 71; italics in original)

I provided further such examples in my lengthy paper, "Use of the Term Anti-Catholic in Protestant and Secular Scholarly Works of History and Sociology" (http://web.archive.org/web/20021208100204/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ222.HTM)
where I cited no less than 55 examples of Protestant scholarly use of the term. My use is perfectly acceptable and is not arbitrary at all. No Protestant has yet disproven that I have done so, or refuted that paper.

In this paper, which is now almost three years old, I wrote the following:

"People use it in somewhat different ways, according to what their purpose is. The sociologists and historians (virtually all the folks I cite) are not primarily interested (often not at all) in Christian doctrinal controversies, but in human behavior, and how that affects societies, culture, or history (taking a long view). Thus, they would emphasize the hostilities, prejudices, propandistic and conspiratorial elements, fears of the unknown, economic and social agitators, class, religious, and ethnic rivalries, cultural assimilation, political ramifications and trends, etc.

"However, some of the sociologists and historians who better understand Christian doctrine and history, have also acknowledged the doctrinal component which comprises my sole working definition ('those who deny that the Catholic Church is a Christian institution'). Almost always, the people who are writing anti-Catholic literature or spouting it in some other fashion, are also anti-Catholic in this sense."

I gave examples:

Mark Noll (evangelical historian):
"Protestant anti-Romanism was a staple of the American theological world . . ."

David O. Moberg (evangelical sociologist): "the tensions have a continuing social, psychological, and ideological basis which must not be overlooked."

Martin Marty (Protestant Church historian): ". . . the editor of the Protestant Home Missionary picked up the cry for the West, where was to be fought a great battle 'between truth and error, between law
and anarchy -- between Christianity . . . and the combined forces of Infidelity and Popery.' "

David Montgomery (Presbyterian pastor):

". . . definition is crucial here. By anti-catholic, I do not mean a rejection of Roman Catholic theological positions. By that definition everyone outside, (and not a few inside), the Roman communion would be deemed anti-catholic! . . . Theological disagreement need not involve suspicion or hostility.

"Some Evangelicals will choose to discuss the issues as they arise in the context of friendship and dialogue, while others will view the Catholic church as the enemy and will see the public renunciation of Roman dogma as an integral part of promoting the evangelical faith. It is this confrontational methodology which I see as the fourth characteristic of anti-catholicism. Not, let me stress, because doctrine is unimportant, but because such a methodology attributes to Roman Catholicism a status it does not merit . . . "

>In the end, you're no better than ct because you cannot handle criticism without calling your adversary names.

I've called no one any names, but rather, simply attributed to them a description which is in standard usage by historians and sociologists, Protestant and Catholic and secular alike.

At the same time, I don't see you objecting to folks like James White and Eric Svendsen regularly using "anti-evangelical" or "anti-Calvinist" or "anti-Protestant" (which I have documented). I have no objection to that; I've used such terms myself (and I've strongly denounced anti-Protestantism on many occasions). It is only your (and their) double standard which would permit such use while denouncing all use of anti-Catholic as somehow dishonest or arbitrary or inherently prejudicial rather than simply descriptive.

>(4) However, to be fair to Armstrong, he is the only person I know of who can take a 29-word question to site administration looking for a judgment call on how to treat him here into a 202-word apology for why he shouldn't talk to me in the first place. Do me a favor: use fewer words when you don't talk to me. It will make you a more credible person overall.

You will be credible if you can stop lying. I haven't talked to you because you have consistently twisted the truth where I am concerned. I've just documented where you have lied about what I believe and how I have acted, and what I have written. And this is not the first time, by any means.

In my "notorious" resolution of January 2005 (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ452.HTM)where I declared that I was through dialoguing with anti-Catholics for good (which has now been distorted and lied about times without number), I repeatedly clarified exactly what it was that I meant.

I define "dialogue" as not simply discussing, period, but as a certain method of discourse, derived from Plato, Aquinas, etc., which involves each party responding to the other and not simply preaching at each other. I also allowed an exception if a person responded point-by-point to any of my papers. But of course no one ever wants to do that. I thought James White had, and so I replied to him earlier this year. He disappeared after that and hasn't been heard from since.

Nor have I ruled out simply talking to anti-Catholics on non-theological topics. My resolution wasn't an apologetic for rudeness. That had nothing to do with it.

For example, in my paper, "Thoughts on Amiable and Constructive Dialogue" (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ126.HTM), which I list as a sort of introduction to discussion on my blog, I wrote:

"There are certain types of posts I am not interested in at all, and I will not reply to them, with rare exceptions. These are:

1) anti-Catholics (those who think that Catholicism is not a Christian system of theology and doctrine) -- I've had virtually unanimously-bad experiences with these folks for thirteen years.

". . . They will certainly show up, if my eight years of experience on Internet boards and lists are any indication. If others want to talk to them, that's fine (you're free to do so here), but I will not, except in
rare circumstances which I deem to be an exception to the rule, for whatever reasons."

And so, quite consistently, I have made exceptions in some cases. I attempted to discuss why I decided not to try to dialogue woth anti-Catholics (because that was not a theological debate but merely a clarification), with your big buddy Steve Hays (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ177.HTM), but he refused to interact with my reasoning, and also keeps up a steady stream of insults. I'm doing much the same sort of conversation here. We'll see if this can be an intelligent conversation, or yet another impetus for a fresh round of childish insults and lies. IN any event, I am under no obligation to talk to anyone whom I deem a waste of time, for various reasons. PP does that, James White does; pretty much everyone does. I understand that you may not like it that I include you on my list of "must-avoids," but life is tough. You insult me over and over; I simply avoid you as much as I can. Which is worse?

>Back to PP's originally-scheduled blog. Keep it between the ditches, Armstrong. xoxox

Love to you, too, Turk. Now the ball's in your court. As you say, I have set several things straight "for the record."

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:15:00 PM  
Anonymous dave armstrong said...

See the expanded, more documented version of the above on my blog: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/if-possible-live-peaceably-with-all.html

Turk is welcome to come and respond.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:45:00 AM  
Blogger Phil Johnson said...

"See the expanded, more documented version of the above on my blog."

That part cracked me up. Only Dave Armstrong would feel the need to make an "expanded" edition of such an already-overdone and grotesquely exaggerated verbal onslaught. It's impossible to parody this stuff. It's already a funnier caricature than the old "I'm a Moron, But I Love Myself" blog.

Dave: get some help. Seriously.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:31:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home