Anti-Catholic James Swan’s Goofy Anonymous “Reviews” of My Book

Documenting (for fun) just one of the many ridiculous things that anti-Catholic polemicists do . . .

***

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant Polemicist and World Class Insulter James Swan has recently communicated to me privately that he looks forward to a time where my name will no longer be mentioned on his blog, Boors All. This is a tremendous leap of progress for him. Remember, at its peak about six months ago, his literal obsession with my work had been indicated by some 150 posts on his blog or Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White’s: devoted primarily or largely to myself, even though for years now Swan says he hasn’t taken me “seriously.”

Now the man has managed to control and contain his polemical obsessions and compulsions to such a laudable extent that we can see the happy day ahead where neither “Dave Armstrong” nor “DA” nor “theologian of glory” nor other nicknames he has come up with will be present on his profound blog. That’s quite sumpin’, ain’t it? He has a long ways to go yet but hey, some folks are slower to learn than others. Give the man an E for effort and for the very best of intentions.

But apparently the grand finale of his dealings with me; the fond farewell, the last song, the last dance, the final encore of the illustrious Swan vs. “DA” relationship: the last will and testament to a terrifically scholarly body of work from our friend, will be a series of six book reviews of my book, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin, where neither the book name appears (except clandestinely in the article titles), nor the author.

Ever hear of anything as ridiculous as that? It’s hard to believe, isn’t it? But it’s true. It’s a fitting end to a ludicrous eight-year career of bashing “Romanists” and supposed opposers of the gospel like myself. Here are the links with their dates:

“Book Review” #1 (22 March 2010)

“Book Review” #2 (23 March 2010)

“Book Review” #3 (23 March 2010)

“Book Review” #4 (29 March 2010)

“Book Review” #5 (22 April 2010)

“Book Review” #6 (6 May 2010)

It’s great fun to see how he avoids the name of both author and book (and even any links to the work) throughout. He writes:

A Roman Catholic recently blogged a large amount of material on John Calvin. I held out reading any of it and waited to see what he’d put forth in a published book. So I recently received his book on Calvin. Material on a blog can be edited or deleted as if by magic. A published work though sets one’s opinion and research concretely. I plan on at least working through some of it to see if Patrick Madrid’s claim that this author’s work ably refutes Calvinism is correct. (#1)

On this blog some months ago, this very subject of the author’s Calvin material came up as well. (#1)

I debated as to who to follow in my review of a recent Roman Catholic book on John Calvin. Calvin’s order or that put forth by the Roman Catholic author. [sic; incomplete sentences are impressive in book reviews] Common sense tells me to follow the order of argumentation set forth by Calvin, but since the review is on the analysis put forth by a Roman Catholic author, I’m going to journey through his book via his order. (#2)

. . . the roman Catholic author . . . [twice] (#2)

. . . a Roman Catholic book on John Calvin . . . (#3)

In a self-published Roman Catholic book . . . (#4)

In a Roman Catholic Calvin book . . . [huh?!] (#5)

Here is how the Roman Catholic book interprets IV, 9:14: (#5)

. . . the Roman Catholic author . . . [twice] (#5)

In a Roman Catholic book critiquing John Calvin . . . (#6)

Here is how the Roman Catholic book interpreted and interacts with IV, 10:10: [hmm; I thought human beings — i.e., authors — interpreted, not inanimate books . . .] (#6)

. . . the Roman Catholic author . . . (#6)

Imagine someone else writing about this!: “James Swan, in his review #4 of a Roman Catholic book written by who knows who and published by who knows who in an unknown year (look up the link on amazon to one of their anonymous authors) . . . ”

I’m going to a concert tonight, featuring an American band. After I get home I’ll write a review of the band without letting you know their name or where they played, or what non-songs they didn’t sing and didn’t play on their invisible non-instruments. I’ll illogically refuse to tell you all about what I didn’t hear with my ears that didn’t function, and my phantom wife who wasn’t really there, either. But the band (that doesn’t actually exist) will stink! I know that before I go, cuz I know these guys, and I know that I have to despise every song they don’t sing and don’t record on non-existent albums, because they don’t (no, they do!!) take every song out of context . . .

***

Addendum (2-13-18): Alas, Swan (seven-and-a-half years later) still hasn’t managed to totally purge my name from his site , and several anomalous instances of it can yet be found (one / two / three / four / five). He even called me a “Catholic apologist” in the first example! (as opposed to his constant “Roman Catholic” usage). Occasionally, he also allows commenters to name He Who Shall Not be Named. No one’s perfect . . .

***

(originally 6-30-10)

Photo credit: Photo (of the original What’s My Line? television set and panel of the show. From left: Dorothy Kilgallen, Bennett Cerf, Arlene Francis, Hal Block and host John Daly. The task was to guess the occupation of the guests. The show ran from 1950-1967, and I certainly remember it from my childhood [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

"Attack the person, not the arguments. An academic example of scholarly observation and critique."

Clerical Celibacy: Hostile Protestant Commentary & ..."
"I already added a long excerpt from it to my post. :-)"

LeBron Declines One-on-One Challenge w Laura ..."
"Thanks for reading my stuff and buying my books. I really appreciate that. Let me ..."

LeBron Declines One-on-One Challenge w Laura ..."
"Here is link if you are interestedhttps://www.washingtonpost...."

LeBron Declines One-on-One Challenge w Laura ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment