Saturday, November 26, 2005

Time For Plan B

[File this under unintentional humor]

In chronological order of things, so far as I can put things together.

(1) Sometime in April or May [?] some fake Dave Armstrong blog goes up. This angers Mr Armstrong, who devotes some posts to the fake blog. Eventually, after much protest, the hoaxster takes the blog down.

(2) I post some threads on narcissism a few months back having nothing to do with Mr Armstrong. Mr Armstrong brings in the accusation that the threads are about him, despite my not mentioning him by name, my not hinting at him, and discussing leftists in subsequent threads. Later, I am accused by Mr Armstrong of thinking of Mr Armstrong in a "secondary" fashion. [I suppose if I deny this, I shall be accused by Mr Armstrong of thinking of Mr Armstrong in a tertiary fashion.]

(3) Recently, Mr Armstrong assembled a rather pathetic compilation of so-called evidence that I was the hoaxster. In fact, Mr Armstrong declared that the evidence was good enough for him. The so-called evidence was dissembled in my post "Press Conference" below. In that thread I also denied being the hoaxster, and I denied having any clue about the hoaxster.

Mr Armstrong also posted a picture of my friend, claiming it was me. [A link to a picture of me is given in the "Stating The Obvious" thread linked below.] This was stated with certainty, an assured result of his not-meticulous-enough ruminations and investigation.

(4) No personal apology so far as I can tell is forthcoming for this charge or the incorrect picture. It isn't too big a deal to me, but at the same time it would've been nice.

(5) Mr Armstrong declares after the fact that the purpose, or one of the purposes, it seems, was to make me deny or confirm being the hoaxster, so that he could put the matter to rest or continue his hunt for the hoaxster. He could've merely sent me a private email [or we could talk live] and handled things like an adult, but he preferred to publicly posture and adopt the affectations of victimhood.

(6) Mr Armstrong puts together a few obvious pieces of information and, so it seems to me, has this attitude that he's "outing" me. Of course, I've stated more than once that anybody who wants to know who I am can ask and I'll tell. See the "Stating The Obvious" thread in which I tell people how to post the pretty-obvious clues together to deduce who I am.

What's the point of all of this? Well, Mr Armstrong's bungled charges apparently caught the eye of the hoaxster, one "Cardinal Neumann." If I understand the hoaxster correctly, he felt bad for my taking the rap [as very well he should].

So in the end, after all of Mr Armstrong's master plan has been carried out, the very hoax blog whose existence Mr Armstrong deplored is back up. It has apparently raised the ire of Mr Armstrong, based on what I saw when I perused his outfit. That is, after (i) posting a false picture of me [a real picture of me is presented in the "Stating The Obvious" thread below], (ii) making a very serious false charge based on the most specious of evidence, and (iii) attempting to "out" me as if it were some big secret [which it has never been], the hoax blog is apparently back up, and the hoaxster has dropped the gauntlet right before Mr Armstrong. Mr Armstrong even provides the link to this hoax blog so that we too can feel his pathos and outrage at the hoax blog.

So Mr Armstrong's original plan failed, at least as far as Mr Armstrong is concerned: false charges and the resurrection of the hoax blog. As the saying goes: it's time for Mr Armstrong to go back to the drawing board.


Blogger Anne said...

The hoax blog has apparently been taken down again, darn the luck.

I hadn't seen it yet. :^(

That's me...usually a day late and a dollar short. ;^)

Sunday, November 27, 2005 8:20:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Armstrong said...

Not to worry, anne. You can see the whole thing at my blog, complete with pictures, if you want to see how idiotic and without substance anti-Catholic "critics" can be:

Readers who actually attempt to hear both sides of a story might also be interested in my reply to PP:

Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:22:00 PM  
Anonymous dave armstrong said...

Eric Vestrup wrote:

"(5) Mr Armstrong declares after the fact that the purpose, or one of the purposes, it seems, was to make me deny or confirm being the hoaxster, so that he could put the matter to rest or continue his hunt for the hoaxster."

That's correct. Whether I declare that "after the fact" or not has no bearing on whether it was a factor in what I did. It would hardly make any strategic sense to outwardly declare that purpose from the outset. Then you would would just play more games, as you are accustomed to doing. The way I did it caused you to finally answer the question I repeatedly asked two months ago. I defeated your game by a harmless one of my own.

"He could've merely sent me a private email [or we could talk live] and handled things like an adult, . . ."

Sure, I could have done so, if I had the slightest reason to believe that you would have responded courteously and straightforwardly as an adult. But the history of your dealings with me provided no basis for me to suspect that you would. So I restricted myself to asking you on your blog.

Why would that not be sufficient itself? Are you saying that you are unwilling to answer such questions publicly on your blog, but that if someone e-mails you privately or calls you up, then you are willing to act like an "adult" and reply? That's odd . . .

". . . but he preferred to publicly posture and adopt the affectations of victimhood."

LOL So you say. Must you put a cynical slant on everything I do and say? Does this give you a charge to lie about others: those whom you know little about at all?

My recent effort was simply having fun, as I stated repeatedly. Since you make a lot out of all your clues as to your real name that you took to be so glaringly "obvious" it is pretty funny that you miss this (ahem: rather obvious) point. Hence I wrote in my post about the fake blogger (

"It became a hobby of sorts of mine to try to discover the person who did this. You know: the old detective routine."

"He has denied it and can now be ruled out, and we must start back at square one, trying to determine who it was (i.e., on boring days when it might be fun to engage in a little amateur detective work)."

I also wrote in the comments thread beneath this post:

"I also disagree about the "detective work." As I've explained more than once, to me it was simply a fun pastime. I like "whodunits," so it is fun to try to figure out a mystery. I did my strategy in proclaiming that it was PP. That caused him to deny it. So now I know it wasn't him.

"He likes to play head games with others, so I played a little harmless one with him, so that he finally answered my question of two months ago (whether he did this). Now the allegedly "real" blogmaster has stepped forward (anonymously, of course, as with all spineless cowards).

"I think it is all a great deal of fun, . . . mostly it is just fun . . ." (

You, however (knowing neither me personally, nor the multi-faceted nature of my sense of humor), make out that this is some hyper-serious, paranoid, narcissistic desperate move to preserve my dignity. LOL:

"So in the end, after all of Mr Armstrong's master plan has been carried out, the very hoax blog whose existence Mr Armstrong deplored is back up. It has apparently raised the ire of Mr Armstrong, based on what I saw when I perused his outfit."

"Ire"? WHAT ire? I was absolutely delighted that I had the opportunity to fully document this idiotic blog. Here is what I wrote in the comments thread:

"I couldn't care less what these clowns think of me or my opinions (on a personal or intellectual level). If they offer no rational rebuttal, I have less than no interest.

"I'm simply documenting it and exposing it, because to do so is to immediately prove (without one further word) how asinine, ridiculous, and stupid all of this is. I don't argue against it (apart from a few passing comments here and there); I just expose it. It's self-refuting and self-evidently false and wrong. It makes my opponents look like absolute idiots. If that's what they want, then they will certainly get their wish. None of it harms me at all."

". . . it really doesn't concern me in the slightest. . . . Readers can choose between my arguments and these sorts of groundless, ludicrous personal attacks, and determine what both diametrically opposed approaches suggest as to where the truth lies with regard to the actual issues that these nuts are so up in arms about."


I wrote in another comment:

". . . they think that a discrediting of the apologists for Catholicism as fools and "morons" and self-absorbed idiots helps them to establish in the minds of gullible people that the thing itself (which the "moron" defends) is equally absurd and laughable?

"No one would care less about little ole Dave Armstrong if I didn't defend the Catholic Church and puncture the nonsense that is anti-Catholicism."


The thing itself (the hoax blog) is what is pathetic and embarrassing, not anything I have done to try to find out who did it.

To revisit one of your comments:

"He could've merely sent me a private email [or we could talk live] and handled things like an adult, . . ."

I asked you repeatedly on this blog in late September, whether you did the blog. Sure, I was wrong about my "leads" but they were not unreasonable or totally implausible:

1) You were writing about narcissism (the central theme of the fake blog).

2) At least once you applied this label to me on your blog (before I made comments that you mocked and continue to mock).

3) You persist in the charge that I am this infantile narcissist up to the present day (which confirms that my suspicions made sense), and you persist in doing quack psychoanalysis of what I write, as some "proof" that I am psychologically abnormal. Apparently such lies about others' internal psychological and spiritual states give you a charge. I don't get it, but then there are a lot of things in this world that baffle me.

4) You had a record of doing fake blogs. Those were reasonable leads, but I was wrong, as it turns out.

In any event, I did ask you over and over (on your blog) if you were behind the blog. Here is the documentation:

"Oh, so you have NO particular person in mind when you write all this psychobabble?"

"If you DO have a person or persons in mind, on the other hand, then why don't you come out and reveal who he / she / they are . . ."

"At least the fool who made the fake blog about me (strangely enough, with this same droning "narcissist" theme) had the guts to name me, before he ran and removed it from the Internet (apparently scared of being sued for libel and false pretenses).

"You wouldn't happen to know who THAT guy was, would you, Pee Pee? Just wondering . . .

( )

"Does the following portion of a past post of yours perhaps provide a clue as to who you might possibly have in mind?

". . . 'Hey James White: You're a narcissistic perpetual victim whose favorite topic is himself! In that regards, you're like Dave Armstrong!'"

( )

Then Steve Hays joined in the usual juvenile mocking, so I asked him:

"Who do you think it IS, Steve? In another comment, you said, "Gee, I wonder who you're referring to?" Was that merely an innocent question, or was it a knowing sarcasm?"

( )

He ignored me, too, of course. I guess it is beneath the dignity of an anti-Catholic to talk civilly to a lowly Catholic "narcissist", right Eric (and Steve)?

Instead Steve "answered" in the following fashion:

"The PP and I live in mortal fear that The Nameless One will contact his buddies in Opus Dei to send out a death squad. Why else do you suppose that the PP and I go around in flak-jackets? Sleep with a revolver under the pillow? Sleep in a different motel room every night? Have our own security detail? Use untraceable, disposable cell phones?"

( )

Is this the kind of answer that you would classify as follows, Eric?: "He could've . . . handled things like an adult, . . ."

I continued asking if you were the culprit:

"No one knows yet who produced that idiotic smear, but it looks more and more all the time like it may be PP. If he was not the one, he can easily deny it here. But he sits silent.

"I am simply asking who he had in mind. Why is he so reluctant to say?"


All this, and you never answered at all, as anyone can see by perusing that comments thread. Instead, the goal of the participants in that thread (Steve Hays, "Clinging Vine," and Jonathan Moorhead) was to completely ignore my legitimate concerns and to make me out to be a paranoid nutcase. Quite the "adult" way of handling things, isn't it, Eric?

Now later, you explained exactly why you didn't answer my question (that you now claim you would have answered if only I had written private e-mail or "chatted" with you). it was one of your uncharitable manipulative mind games, as usual:

"What's interesting is that, despite the followup posts on certain leftists and personal experiences, Mr Armstrong wanted to make it about himself, at least, this is what his actions seemed to be from my perspective. This seems to fit right into the narcissism mold described. So, in retrospect, I suppose Mr Armstrong could've been in mind for those threads. I never responded to him because I felt that such a response would be futile, given his propensity to make it all about him. Mr Armstrong's problems are with various comment-makers on the thread --- I never said anything to him. He can take it up with them.

"Question: is there perhaps a reason why several people consider Mr Armstrong to fit my generic narcissism profile? Could it possibly be because of the comments that he made there --- turning it into something about him --- reflect what some would consider a regular behavior trait of his?"

("Press Conference")

Ah, I see. But now you would have us believe that if I had been "adult" enough to write you privately, that suddenly you would rise to the legel of rudimentary charity, civility, and Christian discourse and would have calmly informed me that you were not the author of the fake blog?

Perhaps so. I won't claim absolutely that you wouldn't have done so (which would be rather presumptuous), but I will state that the demands of charity towards another's legitimate concerns would have dictated that you would simply answer me in the discussion posts.

But you chose not to, because of my supposed "propensity to make it all about [me]".

So because of that refusal to answer, I speculated later as to the identity of the blogger, for fun, on a boring day. For that, you now claim that I ought to apologize, with all this baggage and game-playing and cynical foolishness as the backdrop.

I owe no apology. I don't even demand one of you. But I would strongly urge you (for your own sake) to seriously reconsider the nature of your Christian ethics, if you think the way you have behaved is perfectly charitable and pleasing to God.

[also posted on my blog]

Sunday, November 27, 2005 1:37:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home