tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post5488291461041053602..comments2023-11-23T11:12:37.953-06:00Comments on The Supplement - Catholic Commentary: Blast From the PastFred Noltiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-81307254180551571762008-02-04T23:23:00.000-06:002008-02-04T23:23:00.000-06:00No offense to either of you gentlemen, but it seem...No offense to either of you gentlemen, but it seems pretty clear that you're not going to agree about this. :-)<BR/><BR/>ReginaldFred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-21832285643819706492008-02-04T13:29:00.000-06:002008-02-04T13:29:00.000-06:00Live chat is a written format.Live chat is a written format.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-58378391277173046252008-02-04T10:59:00.000-06:002008-02-04T10:59:00.000-06:00Cross-examination is what it is, whether it is in ...Cross-examination is what it is, whether it is in written form or oral. The live chat format is far more like oral debate than it is like written. <BR/><BR/>Be well.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-14190009185249277652008-02-04T07:53:00.000-06:002008-02-04T07:53:00.000-06:00It's amazing what decontextualizing text does, don...It's amazing what decontextualizing text does, don't you think.<BR/><BR/>That part of the sentence you quoted began:<BR/><BR/><I><B>As long as you can use the written forum, you can avoid</B></I><BR/><BR/>and yet your offer that you falsely claim is "exactly what [you] offered him," is actually a written forum.<BR/><BR/>Truly amazing that you manage to chop a piece out of the sentence and make itTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-51947811091424923622008-02-04T02:55:00.000-06:002008-02-04T02:55:00.000-06:00LOL Right . . . the very essence of debate, the he...LOL Right . . . <BR/><BR/><I>the very essence of debate, the heart of debate, which is answering direct questions that test your position for consistency.</I><BR/><BR/>And this is exactly what I offered him (the last time exclusively so) and he turned it down twice. I know it's tough to face the weaknesses of your hero, but c'mon! Let's have a reality check.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-3093469429151115982008-02-03T18:41:00.000-06:002008-02-03T18:41:00.000-06:00Dave,Wow. That's very very far from the truth.Dr....Dave,<BR/><BR/>Wow. That's very very far from the truth.<BR/><BR/>Dr. White has explained his reason for rejecting your offer of an unstructured computer chatroom-style argument:<BR/><BR/><I>"In other words, Armstrong continues to refuse to debate man to man in person, and wishes only to hide behind his keyboard where he knows that no one, and I mean no one, can possibly force him to answer a Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-65946973544541463402008-02-03T14:54:00.000-06:002008-02-03T14:54:00.000-06:00But please don't pretend that Dr. White's lack of ...<I>But please don't pretend that Dr. White's lack of interest in chatroom "debates" with you has anything to do with "performance."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't have to pretend anything. It is a fact, based on:<BR/><BR/>1) His relentlessly poor replies (or lack thereof) in our many written exchanges.<BR/><BR/>2) His fleeing from our initial exchange, refusing to answer hard questions and my last 36 pagesDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-72583885550615568832008-02-02T09:26:00.000-06:002008-02-02T09:26:00.000-06:00Dave,Ok, fine. If you'd like to say it would have...Dave,<BR/><BR/>Ok, fine. If you'd like to say it would have been your third/fourth live debate, I'm ok with that. I don't think Dr. White considered your chatroom discussion a "debate," and I somehow suspect that Matt Slick has a similar take (though I lack interest to contact them and ask). Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Tim Enloe didn't consider that discussion a "debate" for that Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-26747871207361280182008-02-02T00:05:00.000-06:002008-02-02T00:05:00.000-06:00Instead, I wanted to leave open the option for Dav...<I>Instead, I wanted to leave open the option for Dave to make his live debate debut.</I><BR/><BR/>As a point of fact, this is incorrect. At the end of 2000 I debated Tim Enloe live in James White's chat room. Tim decided to depart from our prearranged format, and James White stepped in spontaneously and so I also debated him with no preparation, no notes and no ability to cut-and-paste. <BR/><Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-13692869437719814902008-01-31T19:26:00.001-06:002008-01-31T19:26:00.001-06:00err...that's supposed to be:It's no different in p...err...that's supposed to be:<BR/><BR/>It's no different in principle than asking you to debate on condition that you either <B>deny</B> that you're Reformed or that you admit the truth of the Federal Vision gang's views. You wouldn't take that as a serious offer to debate.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the confusion... - RdPFred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-4286122909064894512008-01-31T19:26:00.000-06:002008-01-31T19:26:00.000-06:00Reginald,If I were faced with that option (either ...Reginald,<BR/><BR/>If I were faced with that option (either deny that I'm reformed or agree that reformed = FV), I would decline. I would not go around telling people that the other guy refused to debate.<BR/><BR/>That would be silly and pointless, unless my whole reason for offering to debate was to obtain a refusal.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-66923285111128627942008-01-31T19:23:00.000-06:002008-01-31T19:23:00.000-06:00Hello Turretinfan,Surely you can see the differenc...Hello Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/><I>Surely you can see the difference.</I><BR/><BR/>I can see the difference in tone, obviously. The difference in effect is inconsequential.<BR/><BR/><I>He stopped negotiating, because he had already lost interest in debating, if he ever had interest in debating.</I><BR/><BR/>If in some fanciful dreamworld I was inclined to participate in a debate, and I was offered Fred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-35093864590009537452008-01-31T18:57:00.000-06:002008-01-31T18:57:00.000-06:00Reginald,I realize that you and I have different i...Reginald,<BR/><BR/>I realize that you and I have different interpretations of Trent, and I'm ok with that.<BR/><BR/>A comment like "when it snows in Houston in July" would be more like "when Hell freezes over" than like "when you decide to advocate the Catholic position." The tone and context determine how one would take the comment. Surely you can see the difference.<BR/><BR/>If Dave was Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-13115684998721762392008-01-31T18:11:00.000-06:002008-01-31T18:11:00.000-06:00Well, Your Host has been unable to participate in ...Well, Your Host has been unable to participate in the discussion all day. My apologies, and thank you all for visiting.<BR/><BR/>Turretinfan, you said:<BR/><BR/><I>What always amuses me is how you seem to suppose that you must be right and I must be wrong when we disagree about what Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II teaches.</I><BR/><BR/>I have to agree with Dave's reply to this. If you think thatFred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-2294589254032688412008-01-31T15:16:00.000-06:002008-01-31T15:16:00.000-06:00Jamie,Thanks for your kind response.In the event t...Jamie,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your kind response.<BR/><BR/>In the event that you find time for it, I'll look forward to our discussion.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-57660054352500845652008-01-31T15:13:00.000-06:002008-01-31T15:13:00.000-06:00TF,I appreciate the offer and may take you up on i...TF,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the offer and may take you up on it in the future. But for the moment I will decline.<BR/><BR/>I know that you read and comments on Dave's blog (as do I). I don't know if you've ever noticed or made the correlation, but I tend to have periods of a few days - maybe even a week - where I have time to comment. But these periods are short and separated by rather lengthy Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-3658996114688413812008-01-31T14:41:00.000-06:002008-01-31T14:41:00.000-06:00Dave,I see you dodged the main issue, namely your ...Dave,<BR/><BR/>I see you dodged the main issue, namely your falibility when it comes to interpreting Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.<BR/><BR/>All the biting sarcasm and misleading analogies in the world don't help you to escape that problem.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-22295338315586585292008-01-31T14:40:00.000-06:002008-01-31T14:40:00.000-06:00I wrote the following on my blog, and it fits here...I wrote the following on my blog, and it fits here too:<BR/><BR/>------------------<BR/><BR/>I'm done with this. There is nowhere else to go with it. Just so everyone knows (incl. TAO) that I have said I am through discussing it, so as not to appear rude . . . TAO can say whatever he likes but I am done. It's already wasted too much of my time today.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-5127751034812658242008-01-31T14:32:00.000-06:002008-01-31T14:32:00.000-06:00What always amuses me is how you seem to suppose t...<I>What always amuses me is how you seem to suppose that you must be right and I must be wrong when we disagree about what Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II teaches.<BR/><BR/>It's almost as though you think your own pontifications are necessarily infallible.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm glad you find them amusing. We all need humor to get through the day. I speak as a published, credentialed apologist (Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-74467033722833108982008-01-31T14:11:00.000-06:002008-01-31T14:11:00.000-06:00Jamie:I'd be happy discuss those issues, and I hav...Jamie:<BR/><BR/>I'd be happy discuss those issues, and I have even posted a few short blog articles on some of them.<BR/><BR/>I'm fairly sure that Dave will not debate me on them, but nevertheless I don't ascribe that to fear.<BR/><BR/>I'd be happy to work out a mutually acceptable debate format for discussing this. Presumably, since the three main issues have little to do with one another, theyTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-38733111910528968802008-01-31T14:08:00.000-06:002008-01-31T14:08:00.000-06:00Minor correction (poor wording and typing on my pa...Minor correction (poor wording and typing on my part)<BR/><BR/>Not "where reginald asserted ..." but rather "where Reginald asserts that you, TF, demand that Dave adopts 3 points ..."<BR/><BR/>I hope this reads a little bit better. My apologies for any confusion or lack of clarity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-4046505714511338012008-01-31T14:05:00.000-06:002008-01-31T14:05:00.000-06:00TF,Of course I follow. When I quoted you, it was ...TF,<BR/><BR/>Of course I follow. When I quoted you, it was a response you gave to this blog - where reginald asserted that Dave must adopt three points. It is your responsibility to provide your own context when it is outside the specific confines of the current article. You did not do that until you responded to me. Thank you for clarifying.<BR/><BR/>Now a question for you. In your "If I amAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-43192223389174132212008-01-31T13:41:00.000-06:002008-01-31T13:41:00.000-06:00Dave,We clearly disagree about what the RCC teache...Dave,<BR/><BR/>We clearly disagree about what the RCC teaches. <BR/><BR/>Now, it's easy to make accusation-riddled comments like yours above, and it is much harder to substantiate such comments.<BR/><BR/>What always amuses me is how you seem to suppose that you must be right and I must be wrong when we disagree about what Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II teaches.<BR/><BR/>It's <B>almost</B> as Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-86071868193498689172008-01-31T13:29:00.000-06:002008-01-31T13:29:00.000-06:00Actually, TAO's demands amount to a requirement th...Actually, TAO's demands amount to a requirement that I adopt as "Catholic" his caricature of Catholicism (which he knows more about that I do myself), so that he has the opportunity to debate the usual straw man of what he wrongly thinks Catholicism is, rather than true Catholicism.<BR/><BR/>I'd truly be an idiot if I agreed to those stacked conditions. The first requirement in any intelligent Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-83494005195724123492008-01-31T13:08:00.000-06:002008-01-31T13:08:00.000-06:00TF,Your argument appears to be something like this...TF,<BR/><BR/>Your argument appears to be something like this: Catholicism teaches X therefore it's not Christian. Dave denies X, therefore he's not Catholic so you cannot debate him for this reason.<BR/><BR/>However, contrary to what you've said "Of course, if I am wrong and the Catholic Church doesn't teach those things, then the first debate we would need to have would be over the proper Richard Froggatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931363750222373223noreply@blogger.com