Catholic "Traditionalists" Are Conscientiously Monitoring "Angry, Pharisaical" Types in Their Ranks / Clarifications of My Critiques of "Trads"

Catholic "traditionalists" clearly have a huge image problem, rightly or wrongly, and the more thoughtful among them are quite concerned about it. "Traditionalists" are widely perceived as angry, extremely judgmental, uncharitable; downright Pharisaical. Now, any social group has its well-behaved folks and renegades and shoot-from-the-hip types. As a sociology major in college, I'm well aware of that. It's tough for an outside observer to say what percentage of any given group might be regarded as examples of the behavior in question.

That said, I have recently been commented upon in a most uncharitable fashion by many people on the Fish Eaters Forum, which calls itself the largest "traditionalist" discussion board on the Internet. I tried to reply rationally, but soon I fell into the huge mud pit and started throwing the mud pies back (as is completely "natural" in such a situation, if not always ethically justified). At length I issued an apology and retraction, and removed the entire "documentary" thread from my website. This was well received by several people on the forum: even by some of my strong critics.

The only heartening aspect of the whole sordid affair was that both site owners (one of whom had called me a "crank" earlier on) and a few other people (mostly women: how illuminating; I've often observed how women do far better at this Internet stuff than men do) showed themselves fair-minded enough to speak out against all the personal attacks and "anti-arguments" (i.e., comments that purport to be rational arguments but are no such thing). People have to live and die by the words they put out on the Internet.

Slanderous, judgmental, ad hominem words and purely personal, mindless attacks are by no means unique to "traditionalists." These are endemic all over the Internet (and Christians of all stripes are some of the worst offenders; it's a disgrace), which is why I ditched all participation on bulletin boards five years ago (save for the one I now moderate myself, at the Coming Home Network, where no personal attacks are allowed, and where we all carry on like actual Christian human beings).

Formerly in this very post I had documented the negative and flat-out stupid things that were written, and stated that if they took this garbage off of their site, I would reciprocate. "VoxClamantis": co-owner of Fish Eaters and in my opinion, a person of considerable intelligence, class, fairness, and Catholic charitability (judging by her standing up to some of the more outrageous attacks on my person, on her board), wrote in the attack thread:

I'd love to have a conversation with Dave Armstrong or Mark Shea, for ex. -- to sit around and have a few beers and talk like Christians for once. Or have an e-mail exchange or a yack session on the phone. I think they'd be surprised.

I replied that "I'd be more than happy to talk on the phone . . . I was always one to try to build bridges. It's my ecumenical nature." We did so yesterday, for about two hours. It was a delightful, perfectly amiable exchange, that did a world of good, I think, in the attempt to build more bridges of understanding between "traditionalists" and those of us who simply call ourselves "orthodox Catholics" (if we must clarify the perfectly acceptable description of "Catholic").

Prior to that time, "Vox" decided to remove the ridiculous attack thread. For this, I give her the very highest accolades and kudos, not because of my personal "honor" or alleged "enormous ego" or whatever (which my critics will, of course, immediately assume is why I would be happy), but simply because it was the right thing to do. Period. It doesn't matter if I am the recipient of the mindless personal insults, or a fellow "traditionalist" or Gerry Matatics or the Man in the Moon. It was unethical and a disgrace (and apparently, even against Fish Eaters board rules). It's a matter of ethical principle. And that is why I am extremely happy that she took it down.

Furthermore, I know she will catch a lot of flak for doing it, and will be inevitably accused of compromise and consorting with "enemies" and so forth, so I appreciate her principled action all the more, because she shows that she will do the right thing even when it might be very controversial and cause her to be personally attacked as well. That's a rare quality in anyone these days, and I am absolutely delighted to see a person of such principle. What a breath of fresh air and bright spot in an otherwise ugly, hideous manifestation of ludicrous, juvenile behavior.

One of the things I asked her about was her opinion as to what percentage of self-described "traditionalists" fell into the category of the overly angry, judgmental types (that she is fed up with every bit as much as I am). She estimated it at 15%. I have no reason to doubt her word on that. I replied that in my experience online, it seemed like maybe 90% of "traditionalists" that I have encountered were of this obnoxious sort.

I think this is one of the phenomena of the Internet that we often observe: the more extreme and unbalanced types in any given group tend to dominate and be more visible, for some reason. I've had very similar experience with Eastern Orthodox Christians online. The ones who are active seemed to overwhelmingly be anti-Catholic, yet I have repeatedly been told by Orthodox that this mentality is a rather small minority among Orthodox in "real life." Likewise, critiques of Catholicism from Protestants online tend to be from an anti-Catholic perspective, whereas I know for a fact (from my own personal experience in this sub-group) that anti-Catholic Protestants are but a small minority of Protestants, and even of evangelical Protestants.

Here are some specific clarifying statements I would like to submit, with regard to my critiques (this will be placed at the top of my "traditionalist" web page as a permanent "disclaimer"):

1) I have always regarded "traditionalists" as Catholics (and refer to them as such on my web page devoted to them). I admire several things about them: their zeal and concern for orthodoxy, their desire to see liturgical and architectural excellence, their observance of traditional Catholic piety, traditional Catholic morality, willingness to take on liberals and modernists, desire to see people come into the fullness of the Catholic Church, etc. I don't "hate" them at all (as some seem to think), because I don't hate anyone. I oppose (as a Catholic apologist) what I feel to be errors and excess in their ranks.

2) I understand that the issue of attendance at SSPX chapels is somewhat controversial, as to whether this is considered schismatic. It is, however, an illicit and less than ideal participation, since there is some distinct sense of "separateness" from the Catholic Church. I know that many if not most "traditionalists" are not formally affiliated with SSPX, let alone being sedevacantists (the position that there is no sitting pope), which is a tiny extreme, radical wing of the movement.

3) Similarly, I haven't classified "traditionalists" (excepting the most extreme ones) as "schismatic." I have used the term "quasi-schismatic" but recently have tried to stop using that description as well (and removed it from the title of my "traditionalist" web page). Most of what I write about Catholic "traditionalism" is not intended at all to characterize the entire group. I was usually responding to arguments I encountered directly, or assertions of more radical ("radtrad") elements of the movement. Many of my papers on the topic were written before 2000, and I have learned a lot since that time, especially in recent dialogues. In my book and some of my major, more general papers on the topic (example), I never name a single person or group, because I was concerned only with rebuking errors and certain attitudes. This was also the methodology of the Council of Trent (it never named Luther or Calvin). In other critiques, I went specifically after declared erroneous opinions of individuals or groups (example one / example two / example three). I understand full well that there is a large diversity of opinion in their ranks.

4) Most "traditionalists" accept the notion of the indefectibility of the Church. Again, I have used the term "quasi-defectibility" to describe a position often heard, that the Church is still the Church, but in very dire condition and barely surviving. I've always agreed (closely following my mentor, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.) that modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church (which is why I also have a web page devoted to criticism of the liberals, and half a book about modernism as well). The disagreement is regarding its exact cause and location, and the solutions to the problem.

5) I understand that most "traditionalists" accept the validity of the Novus Ordo or Pauline Mass, but consider it objectively inferior to the Tridentine Mass, and (as I wholeheartedly agree) often subjected to the grossest abuses in practice. I agree that all abuses ought to be eliminated, but I am in favor of liturgical diversity within a proper observance, so that people can worship as they please, within a context correct, orthodox liturgical practice. There are 22 rites in the Catholic Church.

6) I don't have the slightest objection to anyone preferring to attend the Tridentine Mass. I was completely in favor of the recent decision from the Holy Father to make that Mass more widely available. I've been attending the only parish in metro Detroit that offered it prior to that time, and have attended the very reverent, traditionally-practiced Novus Ordo Latin Mass there for 17 years.

7) Most "traditionalists" accept Vatican II as a legitimate ecumenical council, but they usually contend that it was "ambiguous" and was subject to an attempted takeover by modernists in the Church. I reply that there was controversy and subterfuge in all councils. This is why we need the protection of the Holy Spirit, lest human beings make a complete mess of everything in the Church.

8) Most "traditionalists" believe that the popes since Pius XII (the usual dividing line in their analyses) are legitimate popes, though they make many strong criticisms, including even accusations of modernism to some extent.

9) Most "traditionalists" take a very low view of ecumenism, yet I have often observed that they classify post World War II "Catholic ecumenism" as heretical indifferentism: something that Vatican II and encyclicals have consistently condemned. And they tend to think that it is somehow contradictory to the notion of "no salvation outside the Church" or efforts to do apologetics and to bring people into the fullness of the One True Church (which it is not at all). So here it is a confusion of category and intent.

10) Since I and most Catholic apologists I know who treat "traditionalism" regard its adherents as fellow Catholics, we would greatly appreciate it if they would cease referring to us with the highly insulting description of "neo-Catholics." I object to "neo-conservative Catholic" as well (especially once one studies about what it means in "traditionalist" circles), but it is at least better than "neo-Catholic" -- if we must be called something other than the preferred "Catholic" or "orthodox Catholic." I continue to consistently put "traditionalist" in quotes because I deny that they have a lock on Catholic Tradition, or even that they have defined it properly. I would call myself a "traditionalist" because I accept in faith all that the Church teaches. But I am willing to at least call them what they call themselves, even if I put it in quotes, to register a "protest" of sorts, whereas we are called things that are downright insulting and that we vehemently object to, and that question our very orthodoxy or commitment to the fullness of Catholic Tradition. I think this is an elementary ethical consideration: not referring to people in ways that are known to be quite insulting to them.

I have (getting back to the topic of "traditionalists" rebuking offenders in their own ranks) preserved the positive,"internal policing" / rebuke comments from the now removed thread below, in blue. The first thread noted below is actually still online. If it is removed, too, then I'll remove the comments below, as a good will gesture. As it is, it stands as an example of the sort of rhetoric that site owner Vox and I equally condemn as despicable unChristian rhetoric:

First Thread: Begun on 24 September 2008 [ link ]

HMiS

9-24 And since when is Mr Armstrong Pope that he can compose a Syllabus of Errors. Did I miss a conclave? (#3)

QuisUtDeus ("Site Owner I")

9-24 He's a crank who likes to draw attention to himself. (#4)

Robb

9-24 Will these neo cath prot converts never cease with there [sic] blather? They are the true extremist with their intense hatred for trads combined with there [sic] incessant love for such false devotions as Medji(sp), charismatics, and JP II worship. (#11)

Gerard

9-24 This stuff is written as propaganda for the purpose of prejudicing people who are not familiar with traditional catholicism from even entertaining the possibility of looking into it. (#12)

fridayer

9-25 This guy needs to go play in the sun, get a haircut, get new glasses, lose the mustache and the leather jacket, dust his shelves, and get real flowers for his desk.

I appreciated his Biblical Defense of Catholicism - but I can't stand him now that he's talking nonsense. (#18)

frerejacques

9-28 Catholic Narcissism at its' most embarrassing. Before the internet, what did people like Dave do all day? (#26)

9-28 (comment #33) [posted a You Tube video of Bobby Vinton singing "Mr. Lonely," which is supposed to have something to do with me.]

dogearedpsalter

9-28 His theology sure is crooked. (#28)

Second Thread: Begun on 30 September 2008 [ link ]

QuisUtDeus ("Site Owner I")

10-1 [suggested that my critics should approach me on my site, and posted a guide to fraternal correction by Colin Donovan; the thread was also locked] (#6)

Third Thread: Begun on 27 September 2008 [ now removed from the site ]
(when it was removed it had over 4000 page views)

Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem
[ source ]

neel

9-28 I think you might have gone too far. We know Dave is reading this. He already has misconstrued view of Trads as it is. We don't want to give him any reasons to hate us. (#23)

fridayer

9-29 In all seriousness however, though I think Dave is grossly in error, he definitely called me on childishness. Do accept my sincere apology. (#27)

Gondalus

9-29 Both sides have conducted themselves poorly, and neither should be throwing around accusations (myself included). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that. (#33)

veritas

9-29 As for the people acting in an uncharitable manner and trying to place the blame, both sides on this "debate" are acting like children. This whole exchange on both sides has turned into nothing more than a schoolyard brawl.

Some members of fisheaters have decided that it is okay to be uncivil and call names. Some even have gone so far as to "play God" and pass judgement on a man and the state of his soul they do not know in real life. You cannot know a man's soul and it is not your place to do so. It is also not okay to be the source of calumny or detraction. Unfortunately, this has taken place on both sides.

Mr Armstrong is also guilty of this in his words and actions. It is not okay to get on the proverbial morally high horse and point to this forum and say how evil and bad these people are behaving. He is just as hostile to the members on this forum as they are to him. He is behaving just as bad as those he accuses on this forum by spreading these rude posts and childish behaviour. Mr Armstrong should not be pointing out these petty comments on his blog for his self admitted amusement and for the amusement of others. It does nothing for the Christian charity he cites when he himself is contributing to the downfall of the state of others souls by baiting them. If he truly wanted to help the people he is accusing, he would behave himself and not engage in such a childish manner. He would try to help people understand his position not poke fun of their misunderstanding.

Emotions can run high on these types of forums. Many on both sides should be ashamed of their respective behaviour. It does not matter who started this petty fight. Everyone in it needs to grow up and act in an intelligent and adult manner. They need to act like the good Catholics they strive to be. (#34)

veritas

9-29 Ummm... wow. you seem to have a lot of issues. Despite what you may want to assume, this was not directed at you specifically. It was directed at the general attitude present in this discussion on BOTH sides.

Sadly, the tone of this board has changed a great deal since I first joined back in 2005. In truth it has changed into a very hostile place where instead of discussing things like civilized Catholics, some want to bully instead. It is no wonder so many people have left and deleted themselves lately. (#45)

Spooky

9-29 I left because the tone around here was unbearable. Nobody could ask a simple question w/o being called a modernist, heretic or "not Catholic enough". It hurt to leave, . . . it wasn't any fun to come here anymore. . . . I hate to see people talking trash about the entire website when it's only a fraction of the forum (which is only a fraction of the website). (#49)

veritas

9-29 As for arguing my point, I have made my point about the behaviour that has been displayed on this thread. I think both sides have behaved in an irresponsible manner.

As for my observation on the tone of the forum, it is just that... my observation. It is not a complaint or whatever people want to turn it into.

As for debate, I have debated on this board many times in the past with people who behaved in an intelligent and civil manner. Why should I argue further when all that will happen is that I will be attacked on a personal level? And because I will not stoop down to a childish level and scream "nuh-uh you are" or some other such nonsense and argue in their terms, I will be called names and discounted. No thanks. (#51)

StrictCatholicGirl

9-29 Yes, I agree. This whole thing is saddening. (#57)

VoxClamantis ("Site Owner II")

9-29 I lament the name-calling on both sides of this particular discussion, believing in charity and in what my Mamma always told me: you catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar. I find it sad that people would rather debate personalities, alleged motivations, and other nonsense than the actual arguments. (#63)

StevusMagnus

9-30 Dave has issued an apology on his main blog to us all. I do think this was a classy move and I wish him and his readers well and will pray for them. (#67)

VoxClamantis ("Site Owner II")

9-30 Very classy. And, more importantly, it shows charity and humility. (In the off-chance Mr. Armstrong is still reading this thread, I hope he checks out the Traditional Catholicism 101 page to see the variation in beliefs among "trads." (#69)

StrictCatholicGirl

9-30 Her charity, not to mention her level-headed response brought down the insulting page, inspired a public apology, and possibly opened the door to a calm and intelligent discussion -- while all the "blazing guns" failed. Blessed are the peacemakers! (#74)

neel

9-30 Yeah, I gotta say, I have a LOT of respect for Dave after reading his apology. I think he might have converted me into a loyal reader of his blog -- there's some really interesting stuff on there. (#77)

Hotspur

9-30 veritas had one of the most insightful posts in the thread when she spoke out about the fact that both sides had to bear some of the blame. (#80)

VoxClamantis ("Site Owner II")

10-1 I don't know its thesis or Armstrong's motivations for writing it. But as to the question of this part of the thread, Truth is Truth is Truth. Christ, not we, are the judgers of souls. . . . If, for whatever reason, your aim here is to "take Dave Armstrong down" or what not, I urge you and others with the same desire (if you must) to take it to his blog. If there is a particular argument he makes that you want to discuss here, that's fine -- but keep the personalities and alleged motivations involved out of it. Let's pretend to be philosophers or something. (#92)

VoxClamantis ("Site Owner II")

10-2 Eh, I think it's just an excuse to act holier-than-thou and have something specific to rage against. Rage is such fun for people, it seems. Burn the books! Kill the heretics! Shun the unbeliever! Talk about the Truth of the dogma of no salvation outside the Church as if you've got the Golden Ticket, and laugh even now as you imagine those you think are outside the Church burning forever. Gotta have some dog or other to kick around when life's so complicated and often unsatisfying; it's so much easier than self-examination, charity and subtlety of thought. . . . And, by the way, there is nothing wrong with "ecumenism," properly understood, i.e., ecumenism with the goal of bringing other Christians into the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. It's obviously an abused concept, but to speak of an "ecumenist mentality" without qualification (e.g., "a mentality based on false ecumenism") is imprudent, IMO. (#104)

10-2 No, just saying that anger is something far too many trads like to spend their time on rather than engaging in self-examination, acts of charity, and subtle thinking. Seems to me that too many neo-conservatives and in-your-face Modernist types lose their heads to sloppy thinking and mushy feelings, and too many trads lose their hearts to sloppy thinking and an uncharitable anger. (#108)

10-3 I'm not sure what percentage of trads you think I think don't both exhibit anger and engage in self-examination, charity, and subtle thinking, so... But I'm a trad myself and know plenty of wonderful trads. I also know a sub-set of trads who are not (just) righteously angry, but seem to be unrighteously angry and revel in it (whether or not they also sometimes engage in self-examination, acts of charity, and subtle thinking). Anger seems to be a huge part of their "personae." (#113)

QuisUtDeus ("Site Owner I")

10-3 Now, I personally have no intention to read Armstrong's book. However, I am also not railing against it in public as you are. I have read your posts and claims of what the Fathers said and taught, so that is what I am arguing about. (#121)

VoxClamantis ("Site Owner II")

10-4 The percentage is irrelevant insofar as impressions go -- i.e., sad to say, the impression too many non-trads have of trads is that of angry, Pharisaic, judgmental, self-righteous wannabe Inquisitors rather than happy, content, peaceful, joyous, charitable Christian. Though I know for a fact that this impression is very distorted and exaggerated, I also know -- from having run the the busiest (and largest?) trad forum on the internet for the past few years -- that there is a kernel of Truth here, that a sub-set of trads seem to be just that. They tend to be quite vocal and seem to have lots of time to make sure their opinions are heard (it seems, too, that most are young, unmarried males with no kids to raise and no wives to tend to. The happier and, IMO, saner trads are busy living lives). . . . I'm clear on the concept of righteous anger, and have plenty of it myself. But righteous anger isn't the topic here, at least not for me. I am not talking about righteous anger; I am talking about unrighteous anger; an apparent desire to have things to be angry about; a deliberate seeking of things to be angry about, even to the point of, for ex., twisting the words of the Holy Father; and an inordinate focus on the things that we should be righteously angry about.. . . It's only pleasing to God if it truly is righteous anger, if it is ordinate, if there is no deliberate seeking of scandal that isn't there, if the "going to the mat" is done in such a way as to not give to others the general impression that trads are nasty haters (which is scandalous in itself), and, most importantly, if charity exists alongside it. As to the penultimate point, prudence is key, and I see a lot of imprudence among the sub-set of trads I'm talking about. This imprudence is not serving Christ and His Church with regard to the trad goal of bringing people to Tradition, restoring the ancient sacramental rites, etc. . . . Of course. Catholics will be at variance with the world to some degree and will be hated because too many hate Him. But the fight we must engage in has to be fought with honor, and our enemies must be loved. . . . Of course passivity isn't a good thing, but, as said, wars should be fought with honor. Further, there are just and unjust wars - and when engaging in a just war, it is good to know who the enemy is and deal with their error rather than taking a scattershot approach and machine-gunning anything you see before you. ...And there is such a thing as claiming to be in a supposedly just war while merely enjoying the carnage for whatever reasons, and this, I think, is the key problem here: I think for a sub-set of trads, Tradition isn't the holy path; it's emotional escapism insofar as they view it as "ready-made answers to all of life's problems," an identity, a rebellious thing to be, a (twisted) model of backlash against the wretched effects of radical feminism, etc. . . . Of course you're morally obligated to defend the Church [ link ]-- but calling someone a liar, for ex., can be tricky as "lying" implies intent to tell an untruth that is understood to be an untruth. Knowing what another person actually knows would be necessary. Otherwise, the prudent thing to do would be to not call him a liar, but simply "in error" or "gravely mistaken" or "misinformed" or what not. There's no reason to bump up arguments, to bring alleged motivations into things, to not give the benefit of the doubt, to engage in detraction or calumny, to assume a lack of virtue in another, etc. KWIM? It only makes things snowball into hate-fests as opposed to a discussion meant to bring the Gospel to the world. (#128)

10-4 I wish non-trads would know how diverse the "traditionalist movement" is and stop bashing "trads" with one big gun (the "they're all more Catholic than the Pope but somehow Protestant, too. Hate 'em!" routine). I'd love to have a conversation with Dave Armstrong or Mark Shea, for ex. -- to sit around and have a few beers and talk like Christians for once. Or have an e-mail exchange or a yack session on the phone. I think they'd be surprised. It's sad that, if my impression is true, the only trads they seem to come into contact with are that sub-set I kvetch about all the time -- those who tend to be young males who have the time to make the com-box rounds and who like to fight (and I say this as a great admirer of masculine energy and male protectiveness, too). (#131)

* * * * *

Let's also not forget (honorable mention) the further comments of Caminus on my blog:

10-2-08 You say you love to dialogue not "debate" though it's obvious that you are a control freak. You're just pissed because I don't flatter you in one way or another. Dave, I think it's been so long that someone has checked you and that enormous ego hidden under a thin veil of "humility" that your fantasies about yourself have become pseudo-reality. I think your [sic] probably a likeable guy and probably have good intentions, but you need some serious work on some things, particularly how you formulate doctrine. . . . It just concerns me that you are passing yourself off as something you are not, as evinced by quoting all that irrelevant material. This is serious stuff Dave, you can't just dismiss it. Every word will be judged, as I'm sure you know. It's a call to responsibility. [ link ] [ my reply ]

. . . I see the greatest downfall of otherwise decent catholic men who have entered into the world of so-called popular apologetics is extraordinary pride and egoism that is almost a natural outgrowth of being in the public eye. The mentality of "saving the Church" and building a popular apologetics empire is a fundamental source of the grossest intellectual snobbery. The danger of giving oneself over to pride is so great that I think heroic virtue is needed to avoid these common sins. Add to this the will to profit from well-intentioned works of charity and the concomitant commercialization of sacred things the endeavor becomes certainly vitiated by vainglory and the evil that results far outweighs any possible good that could come of it. I see this phenomenon occur almost invariably among pop-apologists. When their face is shown on t.v. or their voices are heard on the radio, or their printed word is published for millions, the Devil has to engage in but little effort to corrupt the souls of these men for the foundation of his work is already accomplished because it is the natural inclination of our corrupted wills that when we become the center of attention, we almost immediately become infected by the mortal disease of pride. If you don't believe me, the next time you're on the radio or t.v. note the secret thoughts that occur in your mind and you will see that they all tend towards pride. [ link ] [ my reply ] [ 2nd reply ]

. . . There is no such thing as a specific "call" to "apologetics." Just as there is no specific "calling" to work as a delivery man, baker, doctor or lawyer, as these temporal works all fall under the genera of indifferent natural goods. This is not the same as a vocation to the priesthood or religious life as those fall under a special providence. But you can keep telling yourself that if you wish. Convincing yourself that you are a light in the Church "defending the faith" is certainly a fruitful source of motivation. But you are indeed a blind man if you can't see that pride that is necessarily attached to that self-understanding. I've fell [sic] into the same trap in my own experience, confusing something that is deeply satisfying to my own will with the actual will of God. I suppose all I can do at this point is check your work for errors and warn you of the spiritual dangers of speaking for the Church. Our judgement will be much stricter when we de facto place ourselves in the position of a Bishop. And it's worrisome that you don't seem to realize this, especially in light of the errors found in your writing. Don't say I didn't warn you. [ link ] [ my reply ] [ 2nd reply ]

See that, Dave? Notice how you referred to being "published" and consequently initiated into some "community"? Notice how you called it a "business"? These are all very telling comments. Do you even realize the extraordinary damage that is caused by commercializing sacred things? You're so infected with an elitist spirit that you can't read the writing on the wall. And if you think being "soft-spoken" and polite are infallible signs of humility, then I would strongly suggest you put down Newman and pick up St. John of the Cross. [ link ]

10-3-08 It just goes to show what kind of man Dave Armstrong is when confronted with correction. Not only does he not correct the mistake, he goes guns blazing in the opposite direction and puts up a totally irrelevant defense. I suppose it's all those years of controversy that has him so jaded.

Dave, stop being so freaking defensive and take correction where correction is due. All that smoke and mirrors titled by you as pure exoneration is ridiculous. You are extremely quick to lash out and put up copious amounts of verbiage, but slow to listen. [ link ]