Though it only shows the bankruptcy of the argumentation, many have criticized me for not turning this blog into an IIA (Internet Ignorance Aggregator) by having comments. “See, he can’t respond to refutation!” is the cry. Of course, given that I have a toll-free phone number that folks can call twice a week to ask questions or challenge me, the accusation rings a bit hollow. Remember Guardian? Anyway, I have left the comments active on my recent YouTube videos (we have taken to calling them “vlogs” intead of “blogs”), and the results are predictably educational. Anyone going to my YouTube page will know who I am, what my name is, what I am doing, etc. I surely have no interest (let alone time!) to be policing the comments, so surf through them at your own risk.
Last weekend when I got a chance to sit down and watch Michuta’s video, I posted a graphic showing that the anonymous video was, in fact, posted by Gary Michuta. This morning I began my ritual RSS run, and I saw a new post at Beggars, James Swan’s blog. Carrie, who wrote an excellent post shedding important light upon another of Michuta’s accusations of “half truths,” mentioned in passing that Michuta had removed his name from his YouTube account. I immediately logged in and lo and behold, I was once again reminded of the importance of saving files, or in this case, graphics. You can find the original graphic below, and now we have the current edition. I had attempted to leave a comment on the video yesterday, asking those who were posting the most vitriolic ad-hominems why they were not dealing with the substance of my documentation, and inviting them to call the DL to make their case directly. The comment never appeared.
I have posted a five-part series on Ignatius in response to Ray. You can watch them all now, if you so choose, or, they will appear over the course of the next month on the blog, one per week (for those who prefer their doses of patristic studies in smaller packages). The next video I will put up in reference to the Michuta video will address the issues surrounding Athanasius’ 39th Festal letter and Michuta’s incredible assertion that Athanasius himself said his canon was “not altogether accurate,” a misreading of Athanasius that could hardly be more glowing, and unnecessary. Ironically, while removing his name from his account, Michuta is busy taking pot-shots in other forums. Carrie quotes him as saying,
“What’s the difference between a propagandist and an apologist? A propagandist is mainly concerned with mocking and ridiculing his opponents for the entertainment of his co-religionists using whatever information he or she finds to be damaging. An apologist, however, takes his opponents seriously and recognizes that the opponents do have a rationale for what they believe. A good apologist feels the strength of his opponent’s position before critiquing it.”
Given the documentation I have already provided (and there is a lot more to come), the irony of this kind of statement is rich indeed.
