DA: Another tactic is presently being used by Doe. The game is to set one Catholic apologist over another with empty flattery and bogus praise: that Catholic Apologist A is so vastly superior to Catholic Apologist B, who is a dishonest rogue (it's sort of related to the famous "good cop bad cop" ploy). Thus, in this instance (Luther on the Immaculate Conception: A Response to Scott Windsor), I am cast in the worst possible light, as the villain, and Windsor is praised as the hero:
JS: I have no doubt that Scott is a man of integrity, and that he'll make the necessary corrections to his entries. I don't find him to be anything like the other apologist, who, when confronted with this information, has simply kept calling me names while benefiting from my research.
I can see Dave's point, and I did see James comments as him pitting me against "the other apologist" - whom I suspected was Dave, but wasn't sure (Swan refers to a few other Catholic apologists he's responded to on this topic). In the "If the shoe fits" analogy, Dave just put that shoe on. That being said - I did not see Dave's responses as "simply calling (James) names," in fact Dave reached many of the same conclusions I did in my responses. James also claimed Dave finally conceded he (James) was correct on the matter of the Immaculate Conception; I never saw that concession.
DA: What is far more interesting to me is the cynical use of lying and distorting past history in order to suck up to Scott Windsor now. I highly doubt the sincerity of this present vast change of mind of Doe with regard to Windsor, because I know of past encounters between the two that suggest quite a different state of affairs.Well, I have to agree with Dave here, at least to a point. Yes, James in the past has been quite critical of me personally, going off on me personally and not responding to what I've actually said. Again, Dave cites some examples in his article. I am trusting of my fellow man, and perhaps to a fault (which I'm sure is what Dave is getting at here). From my perspective, what James was saying about me was true - I did not resort to namecalling and I have shown the willingness to correct the web page/article on my site. I did not see the need to make a comparison to me and "the other apologist" - and until now, I really haven't commented on James' comparison. Perhaps James truly appreciated my approach? Fine, he did not need to draw Dave into this. Perhaps James deliberately made this comparison to either draw Dave into the discussion again - or he was trying to play me against Dave for some other purpose - which I won't speculate on. Regardless - we should ALL refrain from going personal as such discussion end up looking quite petty to an objective onlooker.
My desire and goal is to present the TRUTH. I have no desire of making this a battle of testosterone. Frankly, it does not matter who finds something first - so long as the TRUTH is being posted. Now, is it common courtesy and scholarship to credit ones sources? Sure thing! We should strive to do that all the time. One frustration I have had with James in the IC series is that he has, more than once, referred to "online sources" but does not provide a link, as if he wants me to "work" at it. This could, however, be perceived as him not wishing to share these sources because perhaps I (or others) will find things in these sources which may not be in James' favor and he's deliberately not sharing sources for that reason. Whatever the reason - I've found sufficient sources and cited them as I go. Some I found on my own, some came from Dave's site - and some came from James' blog(s). Again, if the TRUTH is coming out - who said it first is immaterial; WHAT was said is what we should be our primary concern.