…and this is a 
Creationist email
Category: Creationism • Humor • Kooks
Posted on: November 13, 2006 4:29 PM, by PZ Myers
This fairly typical scrap of creationist email made me smirk. Please, if you're going to be sarcastic and tell me how stupid I am, don't make the first word of your diatribe grammatically incorrect.
your soo smart... I wish I was as smart as you
Oh you are soo much smarter than everyone else. That's odd being that your ancestors were monkeys. Too bad you are going to drown soon when mankind melts the polar ice caps. I guess you would have done just as well if we would have used your embryo for research and the rest of us would be much better off too. What a stupid arrogant know-it-all loser you are.
I do think it's absolutely brilliant that in one short paragraph he managed to express his dull, uncomprehending irritation with four hot-button issues: evolution, global warming, abortion, and fetal research. If only six sentences hadn't exceeded his attention span, maybe he could have worked in something about gay sex and the Iraq war, too.
Comments
You're going to drown, but he's not?
Uh, is he saying that God is going to provide him a divine innertube for the next Deluge, only?
Posted by: Stanton | November 13, 2006 4:33 PM
You can't overanalyze these things. They emerge straight from the midbrain, no cortical involvement at all.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 13, 2006 4:35 PM
Good point.
Certainly, there's got to be a neurosurgeon, or freakshow proprietor with too much money on his or her hands who would love to buy the pickled sub-brain of these, uh, persons.
Posted by: Stanton | November 13, 2006 4:39 PM
All hail PZ Schiekelgrueber and fellow Pharyngulains
Enjoy :)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6243757083930539113&q=laibach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3SvjSu4R-8
Posted by: MOMUS | November 13, 2006 4:41 PM
Perhaps he is on the Liberty University (chortle) debate team?
Posted by: Dwimr | November 13, 2006 4:41 PM
Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Isaiah 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
Posted by: quork | November 13, 2006 4:45 PM
Funny about the flood and God's promise and all. I used to believe that it really took honest allegiance and a dedication to reading the bible to be a true believer - but apparently many of the fundamentalists don't even read their own literature...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veIU0Jwu54w
(this is just so classic - and this guy did get re-elected)
Posted by: Mary | November 13, 2006 4:55 PM
I might also add that, to be grammatically correct, the subject line should read: "... I wish I were as smart as you."
Posted by: dc | November 13, 2006 4:57 PM
Wow. The ignorance knows no bounds.
Do you even reply to the rants? I'm a troll feeder, so I would be inclined to.
But it's not likely that it would make a difference.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 13, 2006 5:27 PM
"This is fairly typical ... " ?
just catching typos.
Posted by: nyar | November 13, 2006 5:28 PM
The theory of evolution leads us to a sad and sorry realization.
Somewhere in the past there is a common ancestor between this moron and PZ. He's a distant cousin, as it were, to all of us.
How distant is the question.
Posted by: Calladus | November 13, 2006 5:41 PM
How distant is the question.
Not distant enough.
Posted by: DrFrank | November 13, 2006 5:48 PM
I'm going to have to call you out on this one. Using descriptive rules, "I wish I was..." is perfectly correct. It is a singular pronoun with a singular gerund. Being processed in society and academics trains you to ignore this rule.
This reflects something I've often seen in evolution-creationism encounters. People who are less educated make mistakes about science issues and are called stupid by educated people. Maybe the correct response, then, is to help them become educated about science issues instead of treating them with disdain?
Sure it takes longer and requires a lot more patience (not to mention, less fun), but isn't that what a more educated person should know to do?
And no, it won't change the minds of everyone, but it couldn't hurt our image either.
Posted by: Lindsay | November 13, 2006 5:51 PM
The rest of you can go ahead and laugh, but there's a good chance I'm related to this person. I have family members that are dumber than dirt. And yes, I do realize what that might say about me.
Posted by: Carl Buell (OGeorge) | November 13, 2006 5:56 PM
I don't think you're right, Lindsay. I was always taught that when words like "if" or "wish" are used, you have to use "were". This site explains it better: http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/were.html
This email is just a sad example of a person fulfilling a stereotype.
Posted by: Jenn | November 13, 2006 6:03 PM
Lindsay,
It's not like this guy is looking for an opinion, or to learn anything.
A measured response to him would be nice, but 9 times out of 10 it goes absolutely nowhere.
Would telling him we are not descended from monkies, but have a common ancestor and that genetically we're more closely related to apes make a difference? I mean he clearly wants to believe that homo sapiens were poofed into existence by god.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 13, 2006 6:04 PM
I don't think PZ was twigging on "I wish I was" - the offending error is the incorrect usage of "Your" instead of "You're". This is a very basic and glaring English error that shows a lack of attention to detail, in my opinion. However, I'll cut the writer slack if English is his second language.
Secondly, PZ is in the business of educating the public, as it were. He gets paid to do so. He's even so generous as to educate those of us who do not pay him!
However, there is a minimum that we are expected to do in order to partake of this. We need to do a minimum of our own homework in order to understand what he is saying.
PZ has pointed out the required homework in a number of posts - and it includes reading books, going to other websites like Talk Origins, and generally learning how to think in rational, logical ways.
Failing to accomplish such prerequisites would earn any Freshman biology student a well deserved failing mark - and they had to pay for the privilege of being found unworthy!
The writer of this email has gotten off easy - he got a smirk, and a mention in a famous Atheist's blog. He can wear his badge of martyrdom proudly. And it didn't even cost him tuition.
Posted by: Calladus | November 13, 2006 6:04 PM
Ack, hit "post" too quickly. I meant to add: ...and this steroetype doesn't listen to reason. Patience is wasted on a person like this.
Posted by: Jenn | November 13, 2006 6:05 PM
` I think it's so funny when dumbasses are so dumb they attribute things they don't understand to other people's dumbness!
Posted by: S E E Quine | November 13, 2006 6:07 PM
I thought it was kind of cute. It had a sort of poetry to it, ya know?
Posted by: Dan | November 13, 2006 6:12 PM
Wasn't there a study that said that this sort of behavior is pretty normal?
Something like this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10626367&dopt=Abstract
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | November 13, 2006 6:20 PM
Whoa, has no one learned the English subjunctive? "I wish I were" is correct. "I wish I was" is not. There is no gerund in the sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive#The_subjunctive_in_English
The past subjunctive used after "to wish."
Posted by: j | November 13, 2006 6:20 PM
According to prescriptive rules, yes. But this is what Lindsay said:
(Emphasis added.) It's fine in common usage, it just doesn't adhere to the completely arbitrary rules of prescriptive grammar.
Posted by: Davis | November 13, 2006 6:35 PM
My favorite response to this sorta thing is "What about my 'soo smart'?" The blank stare that follows is definately worth it.
Posted by: fwiffo | November 13, 2006 6:51 PM
The English subjunctive is actually doing well. It's just that it no longer shows up in a different verb form as often as it used to - like much else. We've lost other forms, why not it? After all, it's only the verb "to be" that retains a separate form for the subjunctive, and that's being regularized away. Much as "thou art" is gone - no one weeps for "art", do they? Or any of the second person singular's manifestations.
Posted by: The Ridger | November 13, 2006 6:55 PM
And anyway, I'm quite sure there's no fear in his mind that there will be a flood from global warming - that's his attempt at sarcasm, precisely because God promised no more floods.
Posted by: The Ridger | November 13, 2006 6:58 PM
First, about the grammar. My comment was based on descriptive rules; those contained in our basic language instincts which tell us things like the number of two related objects must agree. Jenn spoke of a "prescriptive" rule which society creates to override our instincts. Most of these prescriptive rules are quite absurd from a descriptive standpoint because they insist on doing nutty things like making your helpers and pronouns disagree in number. (Steven Pinker is the man on this subject, and a great expose on this subject can be found here:
http://camba.ucsd.edu/~bakovic/ll/grammar_puss.html Down with the language mavens! :-D)
As far as whether or not it was what PZ wanted to point out, it was in bold, so I considered it fair game. :) Regardless of which error you focus on (Ha! I dangled a participle!), the "your" or the "I wish I was," it only serves to support the main point of the comment: educated people treat unedumacated peeple like their dum. I think this is as silly as treating English-as-a-Second-Language people as if they are stupid because they can't communicate "properly" with native speakers. I don't think you should jump to conclusions about someone's intelligence because of their comments.
I also understand that 9 out of 10 times people aren't going to care and that they even might be stupid (and probably deserve it). But, that one open-minded person of a similar background to Idiots 1 through 9 will not think highly of this kind of treatment.
I'm not saying that PZ doesn't have every right in the world to criticize these people who email him (who are clearly looking for some kind of fight), I'm just saying that it might not be the most helpful thing in the world to do. He does a fantastic amount of work and I love reading the blog (thank you, by the way PZ!!), but it's all for naught if you piss off someone who really needs the information. Just something for everyone to think about when in this general situation, that's all I'm trying to say.
Posted by: Lindsay | November 13, 2006 7:03 PM
Indeed, one should weep for the loss of the second person singular, as the lack of a grammatically proper distinction between one and multiple second persons has spawned the likes of "y'all", and "youse".
Posted by: Theo Bromine | November 13, 2006 7:05 PM
Given as how this so-called "Christian" failed to noticed that there were several sections of the Bible devoted specifically to admonishing the reader into loving one's fellow neighbor, I strongly think that the twit failed to notice that God promised no more deluges to destroy the world with.
Posted by: Stanton | November 13, 2006 7:08 PM
Or it's just the whole weird fundie, "never listen to a godless" scientist mind set.
They're very seletive about what science they acknowledge.
I bet he runs for shelter during a hurricane or tornado warning.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 13, 2006 7:11 PM
Lindsay,
It's one thing to try to school someone who seems open to the answers,
it's another to suck it up and play nice with someone who calls you a
"stupid arrogant know-it-all loser".
The fundie creationist trolls are here often, and I don't think we have yet come
across one that has changed their mind. It has nothing to do with our "tone".
Posted by: Steve_C | November 13, 2006 7:24 PM
Do I dare add a spelling flame to a grammar flame?
"
your soo smart...
My favorite response to this sorta thing is "What about my 'soo smart'?" The blank stare that follows is definately worth it.
Posted by: fwiffo | November 13, 2006 06:51 PM
I probably shouldn't because it increases the likelihood that I will misspell something; but the word we were looking for here is "definitely."
Recently on talk.origins I was chided for correcting "your" to "you're" in a subject line. The OP was evidently off his meds, and so another person suggested that I should lay off. I say that the rules of grammar are applicable whatever one's mental state may have been.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | November 13, 2006 7:27 PM
I dunno about anyone else, but I'm a huge fan of hate mail. PZ doesn't even need to put down any commentary, if he would just do a best hate of the week or something, I'd be overjoyed.
Posted by: JD | November 13, 2006 7:42 PM
I am trying to learn something here. As I understand it, some evangelicals take global warming seriously and want something done about it, whereas others, presumably including this person, think that climate change and evolution stand on the same footing. Can anyone tell me more about this?
Posted by: mndarwinist | November 13, 2006 7:42 PM
I get the strangest feeling about these kinds of folks. It reminds me of that scene in "Young Frankenstein". Where Dr. Frankenstein asks Igor "What was the name of the brain"?
Igor, Abby
Dr., Abby? Abby what?
Igor, (In a quiet voice), Normal
Posted by: JamesR | November 13, 2006 7:45 PM
Down with language mavens? I still stand staunchly in opposition to dangling prepositions and the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. Perhaps I am woefully behind the times.
Posted by: j | November 13, 2006 8:02 PM
mndarwinist: "I am trying to learn something here. As I understand it, some evangelicals take global warming seriously and want something done about it, whereas others, presumably including this person, think that climate change and evolution stand on the same footing. Can anyone tell me more about this?"
Not authoritative at all, just my opinions...
Evangelicals who want something done about global warming - couple of reasons: (1) Responsible stewardship of God's gift; (2) smart enough to believe the science.
Evangelicals who "think that climate change and evolution stand on the same footing" - couple of reasons: (1) God gave people dominion over the earth, which we demonstrate by doing whatever we damn please (corollary - God won't let anything bad happen as long as we have faith); (2) confabulation of conservative and evangelical anti-scientific viewpoints, going one way (conservatives adopting anti-evolution views from evangelicals) and the other (evangelicals adopting anti-global warming views from conservatives).
Posted by: Jud | November 13, 2006 8:08 PM
Yes, J., you're, oh, perhaps a millennium and a half behind the times. That was valid in *Old English*, and, yes, it's still valid now.
Posted by: Nix | November 13, 2006 8:10 PM
This reflects something I've often seen in evolution-creationism encounters. People who are less educated make mistakes about science issues and are called stupid by educated people. Maybe the correct response, then, is to help them become educated about science issues instead of treating them with disdain?
The problem with that line of thinking, Lindsay, is that these people you're talking about don't give a flying fig about science. In fact, they hate it. They hate it because it offers non-mystical explanations for events that used to be considered proof of God's existence. They hate it for other reasons too. But hate it they do.
And they simply are not interested in being "educated" on science by someone who thinks we all came from monkeys. They will actively resist such a situation. Some of them will consider it a test of their faith, and will react accordingly.
So it seems your olive branch idea is a non-starter, for the most part. Which is too bad, because it'd be a pretty easy thing to do
Posted by: spencer | November 13, 2006 8:16 PM
To me there is usually a readily recognizable difference in written or oral prose between a non-native speaker of English and a ignorant boob. The former may butcher the syntax, spelling and choice of words, but the meaning is perfectly clear. The latter's ignorance is on display in all its glory, revealing his ignorance of both language and subject. The latter is what we see in "soo smart's" little piece, at least the part quoted by PZ. To correct his construction belabors the obvious and detracts from the substance, his willful ignorance of his subject.
Posted by: Keanus | November 13, 2006 9:02 PM
Back in nineteen fifty mumble I was in a Cub Scout play that we prepared for our parents. I played the part of a barometer. A large dial with numbers and pointers hung from my neck. The obvious moral of this short one act drama was the value of accuracy and honesty; two ideals I have ever since regarded as co-equal. I can still remember the anxiety of waiting for my one, show stopping line. It was:
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
What else from an instrument of measurement?
Since then I have run across this same comparison in diverse situations and contexts. I seem to remember corollaries in Sagan and Asimov and Heinlein and other writings.
If I can be this attentive to the importance of a throw away line after mumble years, and retain a distinct sense of ethics from nine simple words given to a rapt and forgiving audience and abide by a creed so simply and elegantly stated, why, I ask, why can't those who study the Word of God speak plainly and with proper regard to the structure of their own native language?
I think that the question might answer itself: when one is so accustomed to speaking in an undefined language or idiom (scripture and sermons) to an unsophisticated and uncritical audience (a congregation of believers) it is not the message, but the appeal to accepted dogma that makes the words memorable.
To be fair, I think there are grains of wisdom in even the most banal of declarations. There is linguistic meaning in any statement spoken by a user of language. What most talkers forget is that while they have been ruminating over a persuasive way of saying something, many others have been ruminating over the usefulness and truth of that same thing. The others have the edge.
Still, saying and meaning go arm in arm at arms length and that is the way of it. I'm glad.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 13, 2006 10:22 PM
Heh, yeah, well while you smarty-pantseses are all arguing grammar the Creationists are out buying up all the rowboats. You'll all be crying bitter tears when the water rises, mark my words.
Posted by: jimbo | November 13, 2006 10:48 PM
PZ consider that you don't have enough years left in your life to possibly educate this person to the same level of knowledge and understanding that you have. You would have to start with basic concepts,like 1+1= and work on up through the most basic science (states of matter, energy conversion etc etc)until he could have enough education to realise just how stupid he was before you started on this life time quest to educate him.
So realistically, just yawn, shrug and move on to the next intriguing squid.
Posted by: Paul Mannering | November 13, 2006 11:03 PM
In the future could we be warned when the link gets forwarded to grammarblogs.com, please? You're cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Posted by: Mark C | November 14, 2006 12:50 AM
I mean he clearly wants to believe that homo sapiens were poofed into existence by god.
Ah. I knew someone would be able to work Teh Gay!! in there.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | November 14, 2006 1:20 AM
Meh. I just can't wait until the people who complain about hearing "No problem" instead of "You're welcome" but who haven't bothered to learn any Old English grammar (hypocritical, since they are obviously they are of the opinion that linguistic customs should never change) die of old age. I wonder how many of them are the same people who complain about "Happy Holidays?"
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 14, 2006 4:12 AM
Posted too soon.
Try reading some of the hideously ambiguous and awkward sentences that can result from strict adherence to the dangling prepositions rule, or going around saying "he-or-she" over and over. It reminds me of that bearing problem in my Trig class (I don't remember the problem, just the outcome) where I discovered that following the rules of significant figures would require me to round the hypotenuse to 1000 units--making it shorter than one of the triangle's legs!
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 14, 2006 4:20 AM
I'm going to have to call you out on this one.
Well aren't you an arrogant twit.
Using descriptive rules, "I wish I was..." is perfectly correct.
What ignorant rot. descriptive rules aren't normative -- they don't establish what is "correct".
Posted by: truth machine | November 14, 2006 4:29 AM
I still stand staunchly in opposition to dangling prepositions and the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. Perhaps I am woefully behind the times.
No, you're just ignorant.
Posted by: truth machine | November 14, 2006 4:31 AM
As far as whether or not it was what PZ wanted to point out, it was in bold, so I considered it fair game. :)
Which part of "first word" are you too stupid to comprehend? It was dc who wrote that, to be grammatically correct, it should be "were". You can, like Pinker and other descriptivists, criticize the very notion of grammatical correctness, but if you do so then it's moronic to debate which usages are correct or incorrect.
Posted by: truth machine | November 14, 2006 4:42 AM
I don't think you should jump to conclusions about someone's intelligence because of their comments.
That's a lovely strawman to round out the rest of your patronizing foolishness. PZ pointed out the irony of the letter writer calling PZ stupid. Sheesh.
Posted by: truth machine | November 14, 2006 4:51 AM
Try reading some of the hideously ambiguous and awkward sentences that can result from strict adherence to the dangling prepositions rule
There is no "dangling prepositions" rule. Some ignorant pedant-wannabe's complain, for no reason they can articulate, about ending a sentence with a preposition. That has nothing to do with a dangling participle, which is bad because it's ambiguous or outright misleading, e.g., "Being in a dilapidated condition, I was able to get the house cheap".
Posted by: truth machine | November 14, 2006 4:59 AM
No, I merely pointed it out.
Posted by: truth machine | November 14, 2006 5:35 AM
You're right, "don't start." Indeed, I have little doubt that this display of wit and wisdom would inspire nothing less than open-mouthed amazement in an audience of typical first graders.
I won't address the posts you're referring since they'll doubtless be disemvowelled within minutes of PZ waking up--as they well should--and because they should not be dignified with comments.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 14, 2006 5:36 AM
PS: PZ, are these trolls actually posting from two different IPs, or is it really just one troll clapping one-handed at his own verbal vomitus?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 14, 2006 5:37 AM
And I didn't even comment on the rank stupidity of "It is a singular pronoun with a singular gerund." What part of "I wish I was ...", pray tell, is the gerund? And what the heck is the distinction between a "singular" gerund and other kinds? Perhaps it's the difference between the committing of an error and the committing of many errors. Remarkably, this Lindsey person managed to commit more in their first short paragraph than did the creationist. Think what the world would be like if we was all so thoroughly "processed in society and academics".
Posted by: truth machine | November 14, 2006 5:58 AM
Azkyroth, what the hell are you talking about? You think I'm a troll? You think I'll be disemvowelled? You think I am the same person as "don't even start ..."? None of those are rational beliefs.
Posted by: truth machine | November 14, 2006 6:03 AM
Finally, I would love to whether Lindsey claims that the Oscar Meyer wiener jingle is, according to "descriptive rules", "perfect correct", or not:
Oh, I wish I were an Oscar Mayer wiener
That is what I truly wish to be
'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener
Everyone would be in love with me.
Posted by: truth machine | November 14, 2006 6:12 AM
@article:
Loool, i think you totally nailed it. It sounds like the dull verbosities of a 10 year old kid who has yet to have his social lessions, but sadly it is a homage to the illiteracy an d lack of education regarding almost all disciplines (including their own) that most creationists display.
Posted by: lo | November 14, 2006 7:20 AM
No, truth machine is not the same as our recurring creationist trolls. However, tm does need to take some anger management classes -- the strings of angry comments do make him look a tad...obsessive.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 14, 2006 8:07 AM
As for the Oscar Mayer jingle, I know the answer to that! The last line is incorrect and ought to be Everyone would be in love with I. And you thought you could catch us out... tsk tsk, we is much more cleverer than that.
Posted by: Ray | November 14, 2006 8:07 AM
"Indeed, one should weep for the loss of the second person singular, as the lack of a grammatically proper distinction between one and multiple second persons has spawned the likes of "y'all", and "youse"."
Oh, you think y'all is bad...I grew up in Pittsburgh, where the standard second-person plural was Yinz.
Yes, southwest PA has an...interesting dialect.
Posted by: Ethyl | November 14, 2006 9:27 AM
It was Winston Churchill that said, "a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with."
Posted by: dale | November 14, 2006 9:59 AM
I went into the watering hole last evening to find a sign that said, "Taco's $1.50."
I asked each of the three bartenders, "where is the taco's $1.50?" Nobody got it. They think I'm wierd.
Posted by: dale | November 14, 2006 10:22 AM
Lindsay:
Spencer got in here first; I'd like to second his/her/its vote. There is definitely a class of person who refuses to learn, who deliberately chooses to remain in total ignorance.
Such individuals are worthy only of mockery -- and you don't have to just take my word for it, either. Jefferson felt the same way. (Look at the very first quote in the introduction.)
Posted by: Warren | November 14, 2006 10:24 AM
Just fyi, Pharyngula, you are so smart, and I do wish I were as smart as you. But unlike your interlocutor, I'm trying to get there. (In other words, keep up the good work.)
Posted by: Crazy Little Thing | November 14, 2006 10:34 AM
PZ, why don't you comment on Knowledge and Intelligence?
Posted by: RS | November 14, 2006 10:50 AM
RS said, PZ, why don't you comment on Knowledge and Intelligence?
Because the letter-writer had neither to begin with.
Posted by: Stanton | November 14, 2006 11:10 AM
In response to Lindsay (grammar does not equal intelligence): Ignorance and stupidity are too different things. However, I think when a person is ignorant of something they've been educated about since a very young age, that is stupidity.
It's possible that this guy was in a furious rush, and made a typo. In that case, he obviously didn't care enough about his email, and thus his audience, to proof-read, so why should we give his opinions any repsect?
Posted by: Jenn | November 14, 2006 12:10 PM
ROFLMAO, yeah so I apparently didn't respect you all enough to proof-read and catch my "too" when I should have used "two. Kindly disregard me...
Posted by: Jenn | November 14, 2006 12:15 PM
Sorry for the pedantry, but the comments have me wincing.
Old English is Anglo-Saxon (Modern spoken English derives from a Midlands dialect), and does not have a 'grammar', its structure is similar to other European languages in being synthetic, with word suffices and inflections acting to redundantly indicate tense, person, and mood. It is not until the enlightenment with Samuel Johnson's dictionary that a formal English grammar with rules borrowed from Latin grammar that we see the formalization of Modern English as an analytic language, where word position and juxtaposition indicate tense, person, and mood.
The problem is with teaching writing that stresses personal expression that rules of formal grammar are overlooked, and expected to be mastered later. But this is primarily a rule for teaching ESL and patios speakers (BEV, Spanglish), not for formal educated adult communication.
(For the sake of completeness--Middle English is the period from the Norman Conquest through to about the War of the Roses, when assimilation of French and Latin words into the language were underway. Chaucer wrote in Middle English Midlands dialect, which is why many of the terminal 'e's were voiced, rather than signals of 'long' vowels. Writers from other regional dialects from this period are almost unreadable--the 'Pearl' poet for example)
Posted by: mgr | November 14, 2006 1:16 PM
I guess I'm just wondering why the emailer chose to stoop to your level with the verbal attacks. I suppose the frustration of watching you attack people of faith on a daily basis must have struck a nerve. Still, there are better ways to carry on dialogue unless one's aim is to create more hatred.
Posted by: Forthekids | November 14, 2006 1:18 PM
So how old is the earth FTK?
Posted by: Steve_C | November 14, 2006 1:25 PM
LOL....
Well, Steve, last I heard "scientific consensus" places the earth at 4.5 billion years old. I certainly wouldn't dream of arguing that "fact" here at science central.
Posted by: Forthekids | November 14, 2006 1:48 PM
FTK is about as representative of "people of faith" as GWB is of "presidents of intelligence."
Posted by: Steviepinhead | November 14, 2006 2:02 PM
OK. Was just checking to see if you were a YEC or an OEC.
I know what science says. So do you. Not sure you accept that fact though.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 14, 2006 2:03 PM
As for some normative grammatical rules, don't forget to go boldly where no one has gone before ...
Posted by: Keith Douglas | November 14, 2006 2:03 PM
"FTK is about as representative of "people of faith" as GWB is of "presidents of intelligence.""
Hmmm....that's certainly an interesting comment. I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate as to what exactly it means. I can't imagine that you know much about me or my beliefs.
Posted by: Forthekids | November 14, 2006 2:24 PM
ForTheKids, do realize that, among other things, Professor Myers is ridiculing this hate-mongering twit because A) this guy is a hateful little idiot who thinks that he's smarter than Professor Myers, B) the aforementioned hateful little idiot also forgot the parts in the Bible where the reader is admonished to love thy neighbor, and not to ridicule other people, and where God promised that He would not destroy the world and its inhabitants in another flood.
Posted by: Stanton | November 14, 2006 2:26 PM
Personally, I've found that ridicule never leads to anything other than more outrage and hatred. Not to say that I haven't lost my head on occasion and whipped out a few one liners that would turn heads. But, to keep up the ridicule, sarcasm, and verbal assaults on a daily basis really says something about a person.
There are much better ways to handle situations in which we disagree with people. But, that's just my opinion. You're welcome to your own.
Posted by: Forthekids | November 14, 2006 2:51 PM
Ah, FTK, please feel free to elucidate any relevant views you may have. Instead of dancing around, accusing PZ of vague infractions against "people of [undefined scientific views who give credence to an undefined] faith," all while slipping any questions on your own age-of-earth stance.
But unless you're sock-puppeting someone else's handle, methinks you've shown somewhat of yourself here and on PT...
Feel free to deny and dissimulate, however.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | November 14, 2006 2:52 PM
When all you do to defend yourself is whine that your opponents are being mean to you, you don't do your argument any favors.
Posted by: junk science | November 14, 2006 2:58 PM
How does one correct the behavior of someone like PZ Myers' penpal?
I mean, ForTheKids, how does one argue with someone who argues from the premise "I'm better than you because I accept Jesus H. Christ, and you don't, and if you're so smart, how come I'm going to Heaven, and you're not?"?
I know from personal experience that these sorts of, and I'm very very generous when I say, "persons," that trying to calming and respectfully correct the flaws in these "persons"' arguments is about as constructive as using yak dung spackle to repair a sidewalk in Los Angeles.
Posted by: Stanton | November 14, 2006 3:09 PM
"...is about as constructive as using yak dung spackle to repair a sidewalk in Los Angeles."
Wow... you've done that?
Posted by: Kseniya | November 14, 2006 3:15 PM
"I mean, ForTheKids, how does one argue with someone who argues from the premise "I'm better than you because I accept Jesus H. Christ, and you don't, and if you're so smart, how come I'm going to Heaven, and you're not?""
Well, I hadn't realized that phrase was included in the email, but if that was the emailer's argument, then the best thing to do would be to merely ignore it, IMO. What would be the point of taking that conversation further? And, publishing it in a public blog only enhances the irritation and anger coming from both sides. It feeds the furor frenzy.
Posted by: Forthekids | November 14, 2006 3:33 PM
ForTheKids, they may not say that exactly, but, when they imply that their opponent(s) is going to die or go to Hell through the grace of God, and they, themselves, will not, I strongly suspect that they're arguing from that particular premise.
Personally, I think that such holyrolling idiots should be put in their place, especially since simply ignoring them allows them to continue bother other people with their disgusting spiritual pollution, as well as tarnish the good names of Christians everywhere.
And yes, I tried using yak dung spackle.
It was neither pretty, nor pleasant, especially since the yak I was using was very constipated.
Posted by: Stanton | November 14, 2006 3:44 PM
There are much better ways to handle situations in which we disagree with people.
That's true enough (I assume that by "better" you mean something like "more constructive"), and there are times when those better ways are most appropriate. But this is his personal blog, and he's responding to someone who's making strong, inaccurate statements about something he's an expert in, and is calling him names ("stupid arrogant know-it-all loser").
I gather PZ gets a lot of emails like this. He doesn't whine about each one and claim persecution. Here he's pulled out a good representative and picked it apart, and the worst thing he says about this guy is that he's ignorant.
It wouldn't be right to trot out every item of hate mail to complain about, but neither does he have to silently take all the insults he gets, either. I think this is a healthy way to vent about this sort of thing, and it's in an appropriate place for venting.
Posted by: Leon | November 14, 2006 4:13 PM
"But this is his personal blog, and he's responding to someone who's making strong, inaccurate statements about something he's an expert in, and is calling him names ("stupid arrogant know-it-all loser")."
But, pz uses those type of descriptive words all the time. If you agree that it's okay to put people down in that manner, then there should be no hysteria about the emailer's use of ad homs. It's not entirely clear whether the emailer was refering to something "pz is in expert in", or if he/she is merely put off with pz's attitude. Either way that type of dialogue is hurtful, hateful, and useless.
Posted by: Forthekids | November 14, 2006 4:55 PM
Did I stutter?
Given that you posted four angry posts in a row riddled with gratuitous