Sunday, September 26, 2010

"Yet More Proof That Dave Armstrong is Dishonest": Peter Pike's Big, Triumphant Announcement (and 852 is "far more than double" 899, too!)


This is more fun than a human being ought to be allowed to have (as Rush Limbaugh says). Peter Pike is an anti-Catholic Presbyterian who makes no bones about his very strong detestation of yours truly. Apparently he was itching for a way to "get" me, after being mentioned in a recent post of mine about the many young earth creationists among anti-Catholic Protestant apologists. But it has backfired on him. Here is the entirety of the post that he wrote at Steve "Whopper" Hays' Cryablogue site (posted at 8:18 PM MST on 9-23-10):

Yet More Proof That Dave Armstrong is Dishonest

Too bad for Dave I can post my comments in a forum that receives far more than double the hits per day he gets, so when he deletes them it only means more people read them. Here's a comment I submitted:

Adomnan said:
---
This is enough to put you in the "nutjob" category. Anyone who believes that YEC is "credible" is a kook.
---

Adomnan, have you ever heard of me before?

Nope.

But Dave thinks so highly of me that he's placed me "Among Leading Online Anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists." I'm leading the pack here. Right up there with Sproul and White!

It must break Dave's heart to know I don't care about him at all, that I only came here because TUAD mentioned it and I only commented because I found it so hilarious he put *ME* in another one of his stupid lists.

I can't help that he's so incompetent that he forgot how I told him three years ago (back when he called me just a "Lesser-Known Anti-Catholic") that I wasn't YEC. Check it for yourself: http://calvindude.com/dude/2007/10/02/a-lesser-known-anti-catholic/

I said on October 2, 2007:
---
I really loved this, especially since I’m not even YEC (as if YEC has any bearing on Dave Armstrong’s misuse of Scripture).
---

And now all you can do, Adomnan, is twist a comment I wrote on Triablogue. You didn't read the whole thing, and there's a *REASON* Dave didn't post the whole thing (because he knows if he posts the whole thing everyone will realize he's conducting a shell game here).

Dave doesn't care about the truth, and it's obvious you don't either. You just have an agenda, and a need to twist everything into conformity with your false beliefs.

But who am I to lecture you? Oh yeah: I'm a leading online anti-Catholic.

And you still take anything Dave says seriously? Who's the kook now?
The truth apparently hurts Dave, as he immediately deleted my comment. But now the world knows what he tried to hide.

Labels: , , ,


I replied at Cryablogue, as soon as I found out about this charge:

I never saw the comment, let alone delete it. Now that I know about it, I'll be glad to make a whole new post of it, along with your falsehood that I deleted it.

The latter is an honest mistake on your part, no doubt (see how easy it is to grant benefit of the doubt?), but now Pike will probably call me a liar for saying I never saw it.

So it's loads of fun no matter what happens. Always is with you guys.

I saw that Pike commented on my blog at 10:18 PM EST, "Truth hurts, don't it Dave?"

It did seem to be a strange comment. Presumably he tried to post his longer hit-comment around that time.

I had posted at 8:36 PM in the same thread, right before going downstairs to watch TV with my family for a few hours. I came back to my computer at around 10:50. So I have an alibi. Four witnesses: a wife, daughter, and two sons.

It was probably one of those things where Blogger deletes comments automatically for some reason. They were talking about it [at] Boors All recently [link], trying to figure out why comments were disappearing.

But of course, I get no benefit of the doubt from Pike. If his rotgut disappears, I must have deleted it; therefore, it is "more proof" that I am "dishonest."

And more fun for my readers. Thanks!

My reply above was posted at 9:20 PM at Cryablogue (here's the link, in case it is deleted), but the time of comments there is set for MST (since it was 11:20 PM EST where I am writing, from Michigan). Therefore, we know that all of this happened between 8:36 PM EST (the time of my comment in the same thread) and 10:18 PM EST (8:18 MST), when Pike issued his complaint on my blog and the post at Cryablogue (only an hour and 42 minutes). But the entirety of that time I was watching TV with my family on a whole different floor of my house (and I don't have a laptop computer); therefore I couldn't have possibly deleted his comment. I first posted again at 10:53 PM EST, in response to Pike's short comment.

It's funny and highly ironic that the Pikester makes the charge about my mythical deletion of his comment at the site that has often deleted mine (as I carefully documented back in January). All my comments are now deleted at Boors All, an associated anti-Catholic site (with great hypocrisy being exhibited there, too, in this regard). I've long been banned from James White's chat room as well; from Eric Svendsen's defunct discussion board, and from "the Polemicist" Tim Enloe's blog (he's now a regular ranter at Boors All). Anti-Catholics (whom Pike hangs around a lot) aren't big on open and fair discussion, with both sides being heard.

The only deletion I have done lately (I very rarely ever do it, excepting unquestionable spammers hawking Viagra, etc.) was two remarks from the inimitable "Turretinfan" in the same thread. He came in and immediately called me a liar for no reason, so I deleted it. But there are plenty of his comments still up in the same thread. The comment I wrote at 8:36 was directed towards him. There are also lots of other highly critical comments that can be observed by one and all in the same thread (especially those from "Truth Unites .... and Divides"), including from Pike himself. If I actually wanted to delete Pike's blast in order to "hide" the terrible truth that I supposedly am terrified of, why would I leave these other things up?

Far from wanting to hide this nonsense; to the contrary, I want to expose it (hence this very post). And I do so because it illustrates yet again, for the umpteenth time, how bankrupt the "arguments" coming from some of our Protestant friends are. When they have no substance, they attack people (and this time with blanks and squirt guns); rather like the congressional Democrats who have nothing positive to offer, and so go around lying about their Republican opponents. If that's all someone can do, I'm happy to help them spread their "message" because it helps the Catholic cause and hurts theirs. That's fine and dandy with me.

* * *

Pike has now made his bizarre, pathetic (but utterly predictable) reply in the thread at Cryablogue:

The sad thing, Dave, is that you might actually be telling the truth. Blogger does weird things.

But when you're threatening TUAD and have already deleted TFan's comments, and when I post the comment and it *appears* on your blog but an hour later it is the only post that's gone, then all I have to go by is the fact that you're a dishonorable man.

If it were someone else, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. But you used up all the doubt I could give you long ago. After you cry wolf enough, it's your fault I don't trust you.

(9-23-10, 9:45 PM MST)

Dave is a blowhard and a buffoon. I've wasted enough energy on him to last another year now.

(9-23-10, 11:39 PM MST)

As expected . . . This guy really needs to get a life. Let them keep this ridiculous post up if they insist. No skin off my back; it is a classic example of how anti-Catholics "argue": merely making personal attacks and distorting the truth about the facts about others. whom they disagree with. There is nothing they can do about being caught red-handed here. I even tried to mercifully give Pike an out in my reply over there, saying that I thought his was an "honest mistake . . . no doubt", but he didn't take it, and instead chose to reiterate my supposed dishonesty. All he had to do was say it was an honest mistake, retract it, and take the post down. In those cases, I invariably remove my reply-posts as well. But he chose not to, and to dig in and make himself even more small, silly, and foolish.

This is what irrational bitterness does to people. It's very sad to observe. So, failing any rational reply at this point, I predict that they will step up the attacks and try to come up with some other ridiculous charge that anyone with an IQ higher than a fence post could see through in a second. When will these characters ever learn?

Pike (to get back to comedy) can't even get his math (i.e., simple arithmetic: adding, subtracting, and percentages) right. He wrote above: "Too bad for Dave I can post my comments in a forum that receives far more than double the hits per day he gets."

Really, now? That didn't seem quite right to me. I went over to Cryablogue to see what the daily hits were. The average number per day there was 852 as of 12:50 AM EST, 9-24-10. Anyone can consult the Site Meter there to verify this. Anyone can visit my Site Meter, too. At the same time I checked at Cryablogue, my hits per day were listed at 899. Can anyone explain to me how Pike figures that 852 is "far more than double" 899? Now there is a challenge! And I can't wait to hear the explanation. Talk about "new math," huh?

Since Pike wants to talk numbers (he brought this up, not I), I also have achieved more total visitors than Steve Hays' Cryablogue and its army of regular contributors, including the Pikester (whereas I am all by my lonesome self over here!). My total (as of this writing) is 1,450,959, whereas Cryablogue's is 1,344,142. But by Pike's inexplicable yet undeniably dazzling numerical wizardry, of course 1,344,142 is "far more than double" 1,450,959, too! And Catholics aren't Christians. Abracadabra! Pike is pulling rabbit manure rather than rabbits out of his magical hat.

Our two blogs even started around the same time (mine on 2-2-04 and Hays' on 4-11-04), so I have gotten 106,817 more readers visiting my blog over the last six and-a-half years than Hays (with his several associate writers) has achieved, with only two months' advantage.

Looks like Pike's math skills are about as good as his discernment of what constitutes "proof" of supposed deletions and fear and alleged disdain for truth. Maybe even better . . . Perhaps he thinks Pike's Peak is 1411.5 feet elevation rather than 14,115, too, with his odd brand of math?

Lucky for him, then, that I posted his stellar observations at my site in their entirety, so that more folks can read them and be convinced of his "proof" that I am a liar, so that no one would dream of daring to dissent from his pontifications, because, after all, Peter Pike sez so, and like Simon (and Garfunkel), whatever he sez goes!

I'm dying laughing over here . . . the numbers thing did me in, I confess (as if the "proof" claim and all the accompanying jeremiads and condemnations of my character weren't more than enough itself to cause one to double over in utterly helpless laughter . . .).

* * *

Uh oh! Now Pike has posted his unanswerable critique on his own CalvinDude site, too! The truth about my deceitful character is out! I'm ruined! What will I do now?

* * *

UPDATE: 27 September 2010

I have learned more about Blogger's automatic spam deletion policy, and located Pike's remark in the Blogger spam folder. I wrote about it today, describing exactly the twelve comments that were placed in the folder by Blogger, and how I had restored them to their original sequence in the comboxes where the writers originally posted them. Here is a portion that was devoted to this issue of Pike's blistering criticisms:

God will have to deal with his judgmental cynicism. He's obviously past rational discussion in that regard. I wrote a reply-post, proving that I hadn't done what I was accused of doing.

Now the proof is even more compelling, because I found his missing post in the spam folder. I am now restoring it, as well as eleven other comments. As it is restored in the original sequence of comments now, in the thread, it is seen that his comment occurred at 10:01 PM EST on 9-23-10. Pike then complained at 10:18 and posted his hit piece about my dishonesty. It took him seventeen minutes from a comment that didn't appear, to conclude that I had deleted it and was proved "dishonest." Even my later explanation was futile. Perhaps he will give it up now, but I won't hold my breath.

UPDATE #2: 27 September 2010

This thing gets weirder by the minute. I went over to Cryablogue to Pike's hit-piece post, Yet More Proof That Dave Armstrong is Dishonest, to let Pike and his cronies know that Pike's controversial comment was indeed found in my spam folder. Here is what I wrote:

Today, it was absolutely proved that I didn't delete the comment that Pike claims I deleted, thus providing compelling "proof" that I am allegedly "dishonest." I put a post up explaining all that: [link]

Someone explained on my blog how to access the Blogger spam folder. I went over there and found Pike's comment. It occurred at 10:01 PM EST on 9-23-10. It's now restored in the YEC thread, along with six others in the same thread and five others elsewhere.

Sorry to disappoint the conspiratorialists in these parts. Ironically, 8 of the 12 comments placed in the spam folder were from Catholics, not Protestants.

There is no way that I know of to go back and re-insert a post from the past, with the original date and time and original person who posted it.

If it is possible to do that, I know nothing about it (and I doubt that it is possible: if it is, someone can tell me how it works). Therefore, if anyone sees the re-added post in its original place, this comprises proof, in my mind, that:

1) I never deleted it, and

2) that it was indeed in the spam folder (placed there automatically by Blogger, not myself), so that when I okayed it, it reappeared in its original place.

Go see it for yourself: [link]

Seeing is believing! And a lie and slander of another person is a lie and a slander. A=a. Pike again has a chance to repent and make this right. Will he do so? Or he can dig in even deeper, like Nixon and Clinton during their scandals, and make this a hundred times worse than it ever had to be.

This was posted at 3:21 PM MST 9-27-10 (5:21 EST). Shortly thereafter it disappeared: probably (another irony, if so) because of Blogger spammer policy (in which case it is in Hays' Blogger spam folder and can be restored). I believe that Blogger sent it there because I provided two URLs in it. Later I reposted a link-free version, and it appeared, dated "9/27/2010 3:51 PM" [MST]. But within three minutes, it was gone, too (it was gone by 3:54 MST). Did Pike or Hays delete it? Maybe; maybe not (maybe it was Blogger). I sent the following test-post:

Dave (since my last two posts disappeared).

9/27/2010 3:58 PM [MST]


It was still there at 4:00! And at 4:01! And 4:04! And 4:08. That suggests to me that Blogger didn't take it out (though there may be a delay). Maybe this is left up because it has hardly any content.

By an odd coincidence, Pike had posted just five minutes before I originally did (3:16 PM MST). Check out this sad masterpiece of derisive contempt, where he makes the astounding claim (complete with the obligatory diagnosis of mental illness) that it is entirely possible that I deleted his post and lied about Blogger having removed it):

Dave still get's it all wrong. I am anti-Dave Armstrong.

He's the one who thinks he's the definition of "Catholic."

And, Dave, I'm leaving everything up because it shows what a pompous ass you are, nothing more. (Besides, I'm not convinced I did make a mistake either, since you have the character of a charlatan and you are the kind of person who would delete a post and claim Blogger did it.) Anyone can read our exchange and see that for themselves.

But you really do need to get therapy, Dave. This is not an insult. This is an honest assessment. I've never met anyone with as over-inflated ego as you have. Everything, everywhere, is always about you. It's like the world is a giant conspiracy. If I sneeze, it's because of you. If I quote something Steve says, it's because I'm an anti-Catholic.

Doesn't your pathetic little world ever get boring for you? Expand your horizons. Turn off your computer and leave your basement occasionally. Then you'll see that the world doesn't revolve around you, and you are not some great mystic champion for the Truth. You are a lesser-known wannabe who's only claim to fame is crying a lot about nothing.

You're not on my radar, Dave. I don't follow you. I don't seek out your posts. I don't read your blog. And before you start soiling yourself with how I wrote this post, I merely point out how easy it is for your obviously diseased mind to forget this was a response to your slanderous post about me.

I didn't initiate your post calling me an anti-Catholic YEC. I did't [sic] go to your computer and pen those words.

You did.

Now deal with it.

9/27/2010 3:16 PM

***

12 comments:

Peter Pike said...

Yet again, Dave goes on and on about me being an anti-Catholic. There's not a single anti-Catholic thing in my post. I didn't mention a single thing about Catholicism *AT ALL*.

I defy you to produce this cornucopia of anti-Catholic statements I've supposedly uttered. Your readers are all invited to read every single one of my posts no Roman Catholicism here and find anything that supports your claim that I'm an anti-Catholic.

The fact is, you won't find it. What you will find is proof that *I* am correct when I tell people that "An anti-Catholic is anyone who disagrees with Dave Armstrong."

Martin said...

So is he a YEC?

Turretinfan said...

"He came in and immediately called me a liar for no reason, so I deleted it."

That's not even a true characterization of what happened, Dave.

I'd link people back to the posts you deleted to prove that you're lying now, but alas you deleted them!

- TurretinFan

Dave Armstrong said...

He ain't firmly in the camp, but expressed strong affinities to many aspects of it: at least in the quotation I have from him.

Martin said...

@TF: If my memory serves me I actually read that conversation as it unfolded. I seem to remember you insulting Dave, him asking for a retraction and when you failed to he did delete the particular offensive comments, leaving your others.

In any case, I have followed both personalities for some time. As a person, DA tends to be, if anything, obsessive compulsive about tracking and saving conversations and he typically bends way over backwards for anyone, all of his posts could be characterized as precise, careful and honest. I have difficulty believing your accusation based on what I know of him as a blogger. On the other hand, I have noted many catholic commenters complaining of you cherry picking what you will post on your site. Overall I find you to be generally dishonest in you blogging.

If you disagree with this then please search and find some actual accusation you can pin to Dave. He has documented well the backpedding and double dealing of many of those on the "Beggar's All" forum. Your friends would do well to monitor their posts.

Dave Armstrong said...

Thanks for your very kind words, Martin. It's nice to hear that once in a while, in the midst of an avalanche of personal attacks. I appreciate it.

***

I posted a notice and link to this post underneath Pike's post at Cryablogue. It has now disappeared (perhaps more Blogger technical problems).

I could see why it wouldn't be in their interest over there to make this post known! Gotta present one side only! Works much better that way for their side.

The furor has died down over there: proof that they are embarrassed by the actual facts. Otherwise everyone and their monkey's uncle would be bashing me up and down on the blog. I have long experience with anti-Catholics (14 years online, and even before that). I know how they act, believe me.

Dave Armstrong said...

DA tends to be, if anything, obsessive compulsive about tracking and saving conversations

It's not really obsessive or compulsive, for me to do this. It's simply a matter of necessary documentation. Our anti-Catholic friends have a tendency to revise or selectively remember actual historic events and facts.

This includes past events involving myself. So I have learned by necessity to document everything to a tee, once the insults start flying. My opponents see that as a sort of neurotic or psychotic narcissism.

It's not at all. I document because facts can put an end to controversy about what happened. As anyone can see by the renewed attacks on my honesty, there is a necessity to preserve the facts for anyone with a shred of fairmindedness to observe.

We see that TAO is already revising what happened when I deleted just two of his comments. He's already spinning. So in most cases I preserve everything.

If I am publicly slandered, again and again (as presently), then I have the right to at least document the stuff, so people can know the facts. This is all the more necessary given the tendency also of our anti-Catholic brethren to delete opposing comments on their sites and not allow their readers to see the other side of the story.

I know I can't trust them to actually preserve a reply from me on their site, so I have to preserve it myself. It's just common sense and self-protection.

There is more humor and irony here, too, insofar as my severe critics simultaneously assert that I try to "hide" damning, supposedly incriminating information (as in Pike's latest charge: made utterly ridiculous by my posting his entire post that I supposedly wanted to "hide"), and also that I collect and document too much.

Which is it? But as in many other areas, anti-Catholics have the ability to engage in massive self-contradiction and hypocrisy, so they are hardly even aware that they are doing this at all.

My opponents attack and slander and engage in public gossip and propaganda campaigns, to try to tear down my name and reputation (never succeeding, as is obvious); I document. I think anyone can see which is the more worthwhile and rational and defensible endeavor of the two.

Dave Armstrong said...

I'd link people back to the posts you deleted to prove that you're lying now, but alas you deleted them!

So you deny that you called me a liar in the deleted comments, and proceed to say they are able to "prove" that I am lying now.

Thanks for the confirmation, TAO!

As always, TAO concludes that I am an inveterate liar and deceiver. This is the time-honored anti-Catholic method.

Turretinfan said...

Martin:

I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same situation. In any event, if criticizing Dave = insults, I'm guilty. I've criticized Dave for a variety of faults.

I've also agreed with Dave about the criticisms others have offered. He seems particularly vexed by that, but the criticisms I agree with are legitimate criticisms.

-TurretinFan

Adomnan said...

Peter Pike: The sad thing, Dave, is that you might actually be telling the truth.

Adomnan: Now I have two reasons for regarding Mr. Pike as a "nutjob," although either one of these "false beliefs" would be sufficient:

1) He finds YEC "credible."

2) He thinks it's "sad" when people tell the truth.

Dave Armstrong said...

I have (as of 5 PM EST Monday) added an addendum to this post, describing my new post about the Blogger Spam function and automatic removal of suspected posts.

I added 12 posts that were in the Blogger spam folder today. Included in those were Pike's comment from the YEC thread that he claimed I deleted (thus proving absolutely that I didn't delete it). Also, his first comment in this thread (that is now up to read) was in the folder.

Dave Armstrong said...

Shortly after that I added an Addendum #2, where I cite my post at Cryablogue (that was either deleted or sent to the Blogger spam box by Blogger), and Pike's extraordinarily insulting reply made just five minutes before I wrote my comment, where he reiterates that I am a liar, need therapy, have the biggest ego in world history, etc.

He actually entertains the possibility, even now, after all the proof I have provided, that I deleted his comment and lied about Blogger having removed it.