One can see this figure on the bottom of the sidebar: 1,501,050 as of this writing (since 2 February 2004). That includes the previous Site Meter figures compiled before the new blog design (when the count was reset). Thanks for reading! I appreciate very much all of you who stop by: even my harsh critics. Here are previous related posts:
Blog Passes One Million Visitors Mark (1.5 Million Page Views) [10 October 2008]
Cor ad cor loquitur Passes the One Million Page Views Mark [7 September 2007]
Cor ad cor loquitur Passes Half-Million Visitors Mark [17 January 2007]
Cor ad cor loquitur Passes the 300,000 Visitors Mark [6 March 2006]
I dedicate this celebration to Bishop James White, who confidently predicted over five years ago that this blog would wither up and die (or at least be reduced to virtual insignificance) if I stopped debating anti-Catholic, logically challenged know-nothings such as himself. Bishop White wrote on 5 April 2005:
Same fellow who then took an oath [this is a lie] to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics" (convenient use of terminology) - which had the not overly unexpected result of basically killing his blog, which then went into hibernation during Lent anyway.
I was getting about 300 hits a day then. My average as of writing is 843 per day. I haven't debated anti-Catholics (save for one exception) in over three years. I only did occasionally before that. This is the sort of silliness we get from someone who doesn't have the slightest idea of the range of topics that I cover on this blog (my anti-Catholicism web page is but one of over 50 such topical pages).
I also dedicate this post to anti-Catholic luminary and distinguished personage Eric Svendsen, who wrote prophetically on 4 January 2005:
It appears that direct and substantive critiques of his work have proved too much for Dave Armstrong. He has pulled the plug on his little blog experiment gone bad (Read). It seems Dr. White, in his critiques of Armstrong's arguments that supposedly "confound Protestants," ended up "confounding" Armstrong himself . . . Wasn't it Dave Armstrong who criticized me for closing the comments section of my blog . . .? Wasn't it Armstrong who criticized James White for not opening a comments section on his blog? Wasn't it Armstrong who criticized [so-and-so] for closing the comments section of his blog. And now, as poetic justice would have it, Dave Armstrong is not merely closing the comments section of his apologetic blog--he's getting out of the apologetic blog business entirely! Wow; bravo James [White]! If we had only known earlier that it would take only five consecutive exegetical critiques of Armstrong's argument to shut him up (Tit 1:10-11), many would have done this a long time ago. Well done! : ) ("More Poetic Justice From the RC Apologetic Front")
One can have a great deal of fun playing with numbers. Another amusing incident along these lines occurred recently, when the anti-Catholic Peter Pike was mocking me for some wrongheaded reason (as usual with these guys). He had written the following at Steve "Whopper" Hays' Cryablogue site (on 23 September 2010):
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.
The charge was that I was deliberately deleting his comments on my blog. But unfortunately for Pike I proved shortly afterwards that it was the automatic Blogger spam function that had sent one of his comments to the spam folder for some reason. I restored it once I found this out. Of course he didn't retract the false charge. What else is new with anti-Catholics?
But the funniest thing was his claim that Steve Hays' site receives "far more than double the hits per day" than my blog. I showed at the time (from Site Meter stats on both blogs) that I was receiving an average of 899 hits per day, whereas Steve Hays' Cryablogue was receiving 852. Curious math, that. A quick check today has Hays at 821 and my site at the same time receiving 843. Obviously, then, Hays is still gettin' "far more than double the hits per day" compared to me. Anti-Catholic arithmetic is about as compelling as anti-Catholic theology and pseudo-"history".
I couldn't resist a little tweaking of my harshest critics. One has to laugh at these things once in a while. With all seriousness, though, it is precisely because I continue to have an influence in the Catholic apologetics world, that I pose such a threat to them, and so they have to resort to personal attack in order to try to besmirch my credibility and my name. In order to attack the dreaded Catholic Church: the Beast, they decide to attack and slander her defenders. If they didn't think I was persuading people they would simply ignore me. It obviously hasn't worked.
I didn't get into Catholic apologetics and evangelism to win a popularity contest and be well-liked (or to make tons of money: ha ha!!!). It is my calling from God. It is what I was put on this earth to do (and I've had the privilege to now do it full-time for almost nine years). If I were to let personal attacks hinder my work, I would have never begun it, because it is all part of the package of being an apologist. Often, people don't like it when someone disagrees with their opinions. They take it personally, and so they often attack, the person, like a mother bear with her cubs.
I give all the glory to God that anyone reads my writing at all, and that He has used this poor sinner to spread His message of the Gospel and the fullness of spiritual and theological and moral truth in the Catholic Church. I wouldn't trade my life for anything. God bless all of you. I can't tell you how honored I am that you read what I write. Spread the message! The harvest is ready and the laborers are few.