Now There's a Bit of Hostile E-Mail for You:
Just got it in my mailbox:
hellow nonsense person u know we r all the creature of God and we go to die one day then y u insult any other religion for the sake of just some people or temporatry popularity..... o stupid its a big sin for everyperson..... so u should try to appologise ur sin bu God and never try again this kind of mistake whenever ............
just go to hell disguesting guy......
Uh, OK.
Thank you! That was the best laugh I've had all week.
Another example of veiled genius. The author has taken the annoying convention of writing "God" as "G-d" and turned it around, directing it instead at Prof. Volokh.
This is a masterpiece that must be examined at length and in depth to appreciate its many facets.
To the untrained observer, this is just another typo or further evidence of illiteracy and ignorance.
I say that it's yet further genius. On the surface, the message is that Prof. Volokh has insulted another's religion for temporary popularity... But the e-mailer suggests that EV will not achieve even this modest objective. The extraneous "t" is not extraneous at all, but forms the word "try" with the end of the word "temporary"--i.e. not only would any popularity EV gains at the expense of another's religion be temporary, but he is not even assured of gaining that--he may only try to attain temporary popularity. And while all endeavors contrary to God's will must ultimately fail, this one might not even meet with fleeting success.
Genius, I say!
:-)
PGE
Or employee - perhaps a teacher or administrator ?
Please. 2L's don't have enough time to write such a thoughtful e-mail. It was clearly writted by a 3L.
Why do that? My only guess is that you are trying to make all religious people look bad. Or relatedly that you are trying to garner sympathy for the hostility you face as a result of your religion-skeptic posts.
Yes, it looks like the product of a machine translation.
Nick
"Why do that?"
Laugh much?
Is your imagination really so limited? Exposing this sort of aggressive ignorance to public ridicule seems entirely reasonable -- plus it's funny. And the fact that you seem to think this reflects badly on "all religious people" says rather more about you than about Prof. Volokh's post.
In my experience they're quite adept at doing that for themselves. Besides which, when has EV made any "religious skeptic" posts? I thought that was Ilya's beat.
Nick
Every person, not every man? This guy has political correctness down pat!
Reminds me of another forum where somebody didn't like the host's latest post, and explained the host's lack of education in a fifty-word spew that included insulting terms prefaced by as many as six or seven complex adjectives. Unfortunately for the spewer's claims, his response had very poor punctuation and no capitalization.
When it was pointed out that this made him appear uneducated, his response was, "I didn't have time, I was texting from a cell phone." Uh, okay...
Whedon's comment "Yes, I confess I am a Dumist, a practitioner of Dumism."
Meanwhile, someone remarks:
An interesting viewpoint. How much "militancy" on their part is necessary before it's more appropriate to send them rants like this? And what does this militancy consist of?
That message was supposed to go to Maher. Anyone who's ever seen this site knows your popularity is anything but temporatry.
Sorry for the mixup.
Mike :)
I disagree. I believe the author is not only politically correct, he is also numerically politically correct. That is, he refuses to discriminate against the number "1". What tact! Of course, the number "1" deserves the most care, since we all know it is the loneliest number.
"Or employee - perhaps a teacher or administrator?"
More likely an "angry-studies" professor.
I should not -still- be surprised at the level of cognitive dissonance the hateful religious can reach.
he kunsistantly ovrstates holdgs &dsres]ects steven disents. he dos nt remembur the const dos not 4bid all searchx bt only unreasble searchz.
It lacks the pretensiousness of most of those. Just got one, from a supposed barrister in I forget where. Responded, via an anonymous email account, that I was VERY interested and he should call me at once.
The phone number I gave was FBI's internet fraud unit.
The name I gave was "Jay Edgar Hoover."
Liberals do this all the time on online fora.
Are you going to break out into song for us?
I believe, strictly speaking, it's the loneliest number that you'll ever know, which isn't quite the same thing as being the loneliest number.
Thanks for the link. That page further links to Alan Sokal's "Social Text Affair" which I hadn't thought about for a while, and is great fun.
Do, not know. Carnel subjects not withstanding, those are not synonymous terms.
Trying to win the bigot award?
Now Clayton, have a little charity; youthful omniscience is a neurological disorder, too.
There's an old, I think Hindu, proverb to the effect that for somebody who wears shoes the whole world is covered in leather. It's no cost to me if someone else's leather has studs.
Yep. It's the same tactic used frequently on NOW with Bill Moyers. The show would sometimes have an e-mail or letter from a conservative criticizing a position the show took. That e-mail would often be very hostile and have tons of errors in it.
It's so obvious what Eugene is doing. This is the last time I visit the Volokh Conspiracy.
I believe, strictly speaking, it's the loneliest number that you'll ever know, which isn't quite the same thing as being the loneliest number
But my understanding is that in fact, two can be be as bad as one.
I understand I'm contributing to a joke here. I don't really know if the people above claiming this is some attempt to make religious conservatives look bad are joking or not.
Good point. For example, I took for granted that Pathetic was serious, but now that you mention it....
Maybe, the fakes letters are actually fakes to distract us. Think of it this way: Since we all know that bad grammar in a letter to the editor must be a fake that is used to destroyed the credibility of the opposing party, then we can assume that the email to VC must be the fake of a fake.
in other words, it was really written by not by a suppporter, but by a detractor, of Prof. Volokh's blog. This writer, who actually hates the VC, would write a poorly written email, KNOWING that such a bad fake would be revealed by the likes of Pathetic's extraordinary ability to determine what is real and what is fake.
I mean, isn't it OBVIOUS?
Not your fake, of course, but I have to hold you mildly at fault for being unwise enough to publish it.