I found the following comments interesting and got a chuckle out of a few of them. It's always helpful, I think, to take note of how people perceive what one is doing by way of apologetics. These are from a thread at my friend Steve Ray's Catholic Message Board, in June 2006.
* * * * *
My beef with Dave is that his brand of parody is offensive to some and I think that detracts from his work [of course humor is highly subjective and parody and satire is vastly misunderstood by many people]. His content outside of that is outstanding and I think his verbosity is necessary because he covers most of the angles. If I am looking for the exhaustive defense, I head to Dave first.
My guess is that Dave will show up in a few moments to defend himself with a long dissertation providing a mountain of evidence as to why I am wrong. He also is good at finding out when people are talking about him.
* * *
I didn't know who he was before his name being mentioned on this thread, but Dave Armstrong has a lot of critics. But the thing is, they only make him seem that much more interesting.
Out of all of the negative attitudes that I have read in regards to Catholic apologists, Dave Armstrong seems to catch the brunt of it. But it's funny, because considering how passionate the criticisms are, they mainly attack his character.
One guy was trying to deride him by saying "He's a newspaper boy!" [I delivered newspapers in a large urban route for a year and a half to help make ends meet]. I guess that means Dave can't be intelligent. One place was attacking the fact that Dave has criticisms towards anti-Catholics. It wasn't addressing the actual critique, just the fact that Dave had criticisms. The irrationality of the critics made me think, "Wow, there must be something special with this Dave Armstrong to attract such negative emotion". Now I'm interested to read something by him.
What's the opinion on Dave Armstrong here?
* * *
I like his work personally. In fact, his summary of Catholic doctrines in the Early Church fathers was the last nail in my Protestant coffin. I of course mentioned my one reservation about him earlier. The anti-Catholics do not like him because he fights back and sometimes in a manner that I think is too personal. They get his goat sometimes and I cannot say I don't UNDERSTAND his response. I just don't think it is always appropriate. He has really made himself a target for anti-Catholics. Overall though, I think he has gained readers because of the controversy. He does own up to his mistakes, though . . . if you read him a lot you will get worn out. He is worth the read, though.
In apologetics you cannot make too many mistakes or masses of people will disregard you for those mistakes. No matter how good your arguments are your credibility is hampered by some of the things you do. No matter how illogical it is to disgregard an apologetics work for that reason, the fact is LOTS of folks do it.
I don't pretend to be an apologist of any magnitude. It takes a special kind to put yourself to that kind of criticism on a regular basis, and Dave receives plenty of personal attacks.
* * *
Can't speak for others, naturally, but I like him. And his website is a goldmine.
* * *
He (or his website) has saved my rear more times than I care to ennumerate when debating non-Catholics! God bless Dave Armstrong!
* * *
He has a lot of excellent info, but he seems to favor a dialog format for his writings. Not a style that I find riveting.
* * *