…and this is a 
Stop it NOW, please
Category: Administrative
Posted on: July 14, 2008 3:42 PM, by PZ Myers
So I have this new policy of posting email that threatens violence with full identifying information. I may have to retract that, since it looks like it's getting abused. The idea was that I would have a public record of the threat, and that the smart people commenting here would be able to do a little sleuthing for me.
It is most definitely not intended to incite harassment. I do not want you to be dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk. For one thing, we can't be certain that an innocent's account hasn't been hijacked; for another, we're supposed to be better than that. With the size of the readership here, any reaction by you is likely to be repeated a thousand-fold and turned into an over-reaction. I welcome any suggestions from you all but let me take care of any writing back.
I'm going to have to rethink my policy, which is unfortunate. Exposing roaches to the light is usually a good way to get them to scuttle away, but it's not so good if people use it as an opportunity to swing sledgehammers in the kitchen to squash them.
Comments
Posted by: Jeff | July 14, 2008 3:58 PM
This is sadly how the internet works. Someone makes a post, and masses of people get involved in something that's none of their business. Too many people are looking to get involved and cause trouble.
Posted by: Josh West | July 14, 2008 3:58 PM
For the record, I only sent an email to 1800flowers to notify them of the situation. I though I was pretty polite about it.
Countering abuse with further abuse isn't any good, though the paranoid part of my brain wonders if the local troll weren't doing the abusing in our name. It works for Scientologists.
Posted by: Scholar | July 14, 2008 3:58 PM
PZ, you can't have your crackers and eat them too.
Posted by: paulemaule | July 14, 2008 3:59 PM
Thank you PZ, I have been waiting for that post...
Posted by: James F | July 14, 2008 4:00 PM
Perhaps just posting IP addresses rather than email addresses? Email addresses will inevitably lead to someone sending something....
Posted by: Lago | July 14, 2008 4:01 PM
I thought people would be clever enough to know not to do the above. I do agree with Josh West in what he did, but the other things only make us look like they...
Posted by: pradeep | July 14, 2008 4:01 PM
PZ, this is the price of fame, and the price of having raving heathen hordes ready to consume your foes like locusts at your disposal. But this post should calm your restless readership a bit.
Posted by: Matt | July 14, 2008 4:03 PM
I'm disappointed and quite frankly a little sickened that commenters here would do that. We're meant to be better than that.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 14, 2008 4:03 PM
Where do people get the time to harrass even the idiots?
I only sent one email to Bruininks, and one to the webmaster at UMM (politely urging timely re-link of Pharyngula, presumably with disclaimer). You couldn't get me to do more.
Any chance this will all go away any time soon?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Jason | July 14, 2008 4:04 PM
Can I suggest you add a request to the top of the "Mail Dump" post asking people not to contact the two email addresses? Otherwise people may continue to do so. The are close to 1000 comments on that post so it's safe to assume people won't read all of them before acting.
Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | July 14, 2008 4:07 PM
Gosh, and just when I had my thoughts aimed in the right direction, you pull the plug, and save those crum-bums from the levitious effects of my full concentration. Oh well, a mind is terrible thing to waste, don't you think?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 14, 2008 4:07 PM
Pharyngula these days reminds me of a Grateful Dead tour circa 1987-88. All the cool people who made it a worthwhile scene are still around, but rapidly getting outnumbered by new folks, some of whom don't...quite...get it.
so it goes.
Posted by: geoff | July 14, 2008 4:08 PM
I'm afraid I saw this coming. People are likely to overreact given highly emotional topics such as death threats. I suspect that the type of individual that could send a death threat is every bit as malicious as to get someone else in trouble for it.
Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | July 14, 2008 4:10 PM
Sorry, Sven, I don't want to spoil the party. Oh well, they didn't like me at the Grateful Dead concerts, either.
I got it bad and that ain't good.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | July 14, 2008 4:10 PM
Nice metaphor at the end there. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Patricia | July 14, 2008 4:12 PM
All right! For once being a complete computertard has kept me out of trouble.
Posted by: kmerian | July 14, 2008 4:12 PM
PZ, I hope you use this as an opportunity to see that human nature is what it is. That your fellow "godless atheists" are no better (and no worse) than us "lunatic" Christians.
There are extremists and downright wackos in every group. Yes, the Catholics that sent death threats to that student, and who are sending them to you, are a lunatic fringe that is hardly representative of Catholics. by that same token you have opened a door where people are threatening those who threatened in order that you can show that threatening is wrong (whew!)
My advice to you is that you rescind your request for people to send you Eucharistic hosts to desecrate and be the intelligent and mature man many know you are and say "It ends here, it ends now." And let this all go away.
Posted by: J | July 14, 2008 4:13 PM
You're meant to be better than that? Says who? I've long known that many Pharyngula readers are just as wild, aggressive, stupid and in their own way faith-based as any typical Catholic fundamentalists.
Faith-based? Yes, faith-based. Political correctness is morphing into a secular dogma.
Posted by: unicow | July 14, 2008 4:14 PM
PZ, you should probably just scrub the email addresses from the mails. They're so trivial to forge that I'd be surprised if even the most careless fool would use his own email address in a death threat.
By all means leave the rest of the headers, though. They're a lot harder (though by no means impossible) to manipulate, and are far more valuable information-wise than an email address anyway.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 14, 2008 4:14 PM
some of whom.
some of whom.
I point no fingers...most of you-all are OK by me, and I mean that.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 14, 2008 4:15 PM
Whatevs. I'm merely "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate" us.
Anybody know the emails of Stephen's kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids?
Posted by: Bjorn Watland | July 14, 2008 4:15 PM
Now you learn that you can't control the hordes. Breaking convention and social norms can become habit forming. Maybe people feel that since they were not respectful, and harassing, that they only deserve the same back, even if it is jumping the gun by assigning guilt.
Posted by: Dlux | July 14, 2008 4:17 PM
Yep.
Posted by: Bob Holness | July 14, 2008 4:18 PM
So you did not see that coming?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 14, 2008 4:22 PM
Wank, wank. The reality is that you're generally shitty at argumentation and the wrath you incur is a result of said lack of skill and talent.
However, knowing that you'll merely take it on faith that you're being persecuted for being the lone dissenting voice standing up for apple pie and the American Way, I say:
Fight on, thou lonely freedom fighter, fight on!
Posted by: Cujo359 | July 14, 2008 4:22 PM
it's not so good if people use it as an opportunity to swing sledgehammers in the kitchen to squash them
I like the metaphor, and agree with it. Harassing these people is the wrong way to express outrage. Express it publicly, here or elsewhere. Don't become the thing you despise.
Posted by: SC | July 14, 2008 4:22 PM
You should never underestimate people's capacity to behave stupidly. It's one thing to hope that they don't, but it's unwise to act on the expectation that they won't. I would think a parent would know this :).
Posted by: Neural T | July 14, 2008 4:23 PM
Yeah, did you think was going to happen, PZ? Shows massive ignorance on your part.
Posted by: E in MD | July 14, 2008 4:24 PM
If you're getting physical threats I'd report it to the FBI and/or the postmaster general and leave it at that. Posting the things publicly only gives the assholes that sent them a boner for more publicity. Where as if you file a complaint you might be able to actually see these douchebags in court.
On the plus side, in most jurisdictions you are now permitted to app for a gun carry permit because you have received death threats.
Posted by: Neural T | July 14, 2008 4:25 PM
BTW, PZ, your solicitation of hosts to desecrate, even if facetious, was just as juvenile as the reactions of your readers.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 4:25 PM
You should never underestimate people's capacity to behave stupidly.
true dat.
Posted by: Phil | July 14, 2008 4:27 PM
While I agree with PZ, remember that blogging about a cracker is not the same as threatening someone with death. Being harassed after threatening someone is not the same as threatening to kill someone over a cracker.
Now I do think we can complain to a company if an employee is using their email to say they want to kill someone, don't you? But grow up children. No juvenile emails to them.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 14, 2008 4:27 PM
Oh fuck off Neural. He's posted things before and it didn't happen.
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 14, 2008 4:29 PM
Posted by: kmerian | July 14, 2008 4:12 PMWrong. The kind of harrassment PZ is referencing here is over the line. The communion wafer, however, is - as has been so aptly put - just a cracker. There is no crime in soliciting people to send you something that is given away freely. Conflating the two is, besides being the crux of this 'debate' over legal action, also quite dishonest.
Posted by: pzph | July 14, 2008 4:29 PM
Well, what the hell did you think was going to happen? Buddha on a cracker! (Oops! Bad choice of terms.)
Posted by: kryptonic | July 14, 2008 4:29 PM
This is not new. High profile nutjob bloggers out there post email addresses with the specific intent of inciting their wingnut zombies to harass and intimidate (probably hoping even for physical confrontation/violence, without explicitly stating it). Michelle Malkin comes immediately to mind.
Posting IP addresses, as suggested, may be the way to go. Or eliminating the header information altogether.
Hope this all doesn't result in any legal issues.
Posted by: Dan | July 14, 2008 4:30 PM
@ #24
Yeah, I thought the same.
Seriously PZ, you didn't see this one coming when you posted their emails?
Posted by: IceFarmer | July 14, 2008 4:31 PM
A good way to still post and list things would be to simply to do the following:
1. Post First Name and last initial or Webname
2.City of origin
Both of these would show authenticity.
3. Initially withhold the exact email address.
4. Once you have posted their email, you can send them one informing them that you have posted their vile, vulgar and insipid comments but have withheld their email addresses so as to keep their mail boxes from being flooded with comments. Include a question in closing as to whether they would prefer to have their email addy published or not so that they may receieve whatever responses that may come as a result of theirs.
This would have you doing a lot more work than than you'd prefer but allow you to keep the moral high ground and keep the "discussion" flowing. Something like this may work.
P.S. I like crackers (especially salted ones) with nice, thick creamy soups. You may have to wait until fall to get your full enjoyment. They can be a touch heavy in the hot summer months.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 14, 2008 4:31 PM
Aside: Oh, wonderful... a the existence of violent enemies is a good reason to let someone have a gun?!?! Are we trying to maximize the chance of gunplay on the public streets?
Posted by: CrypticLife | July 14, 2008 4:31 PM
Keep the policy; it's sound. It's not like you're forced to post the information, it's just a warning that you can. Not that such a warning is technically necessary anyway.
Incidentally, as soon as you post an email address, in whatever form, on a webpage you're potentially subjecting it to spam anyway. Robots will come along and recognize it as a potentially viable email address and stuff it into mailing lists.
You should also consider what you want the effect of the policy to be. You could just as easily have sent the emails to the police, or contacted 1800 flowers directly. Maybe these types of threats should be in your policy.
Posted by: J | July 14, 2008 4:32 PM
However, knowing that you'll merely take it on faith that you're being persecuted for being the lone dissenting voice standing up for apple pie and the American Way, I say:
Fight on, thou lonely freedom fighter, fight on!
As usual, you resort to guttersnipe-level misrepresentations. All I ever said is that there is an undesirable, irrational, anti-everything-American climate on Pharyngula. I'm not an American, and I hate the Bush Administration and most aspects of America's foreign policy since WW2. Despite your lies, this is hardly equivalent to "standing up for the American Way".
This relentless intellectual dishonestly only serves to bear out my theory. Your reaction, Brownian, is exactly that of a fundamentalist when his creed is under attack.
Posted by: Village Green | July 14, 2008 4:34 PM
Form a committee of select trusted "sleuths" who have the knowledge to track down Who Dunnit. If actual death threats, then let the authorities investigate.
Posted by: paradoxbomb | July 14, 2008 4:36 PM
On the spam front, any email address that is posted in a web page will inevitably be scraped by bots and put on many spam lists. To confirm this, create a fresh email account, post the address here in comments, and see how long it takes before the deluge comes.
In any case, obfuscating or removing the email addresses would likely remove the bot aspect.
Posted by: pzph | July 14, 2008 4:36 PM
All walks of life are stained by the presence of a small number of idiots and assholes who are very vocal/visible. No group is immune from them and no group has more or less than any other. What matters is if you portray the idiots and assholes as representative of the rest. We already know how people here portray the idiots and assholes among Christianity.
Posted by: Chris Granade | July 14, 2008 4:36 PM
That really is sad. I would have thought that the whole point was that we on the "it's just a cracker" side were driven by rationality in some sense. It still seems that many are, but as with any group, I guess we freethinkers can get out of hand too.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 4:38 PM
kmerian (#17):
It's not every day that one gets to see through a portal into a parallel universe where signing somebody up for gay porn-spam is as bad or worse than threatening to kill them. For that experience, I thank you.
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 14, 2008 4:42 PM
J ranting:
J tapdancing:
No, what you said was that Pharyngula readers were just as dependent on faith in their argumentation than religious believers are, which is a common, and quite tired, accusation from those who have nothing else with which to rebut an argument. Intellectual dishonesty indeed...
Posted by: Monti0 | July 14, 2008 4:42 PM
I agree that this harassment should be stopped.
Mail-bombing these people only diminishes PZ's point. I believe that in cases like this you should ALWAYS take the high ground... You know, sinking to their level, etc. etc.
What if a misguided / crazy reader of this blog threatens the people who mailed the threats to PZ?
Posted by: gburnett | July 14, 2008 4:43 PM
PZ, I think that you have made your wishes clear and so it should not be a problem in the future. However, you can't blame those of us that suffer from the actions of religious nutjobs to leap to the attack. We ARE better than they are, but perhaps it is time we stop bringing knives to gunfights.
Posted by: Chris Granade | July 14, 2008 4:44 PM
@46: While I think that kmerian #17 was trolling, that doesn't mean that we should accept bad behaviors from our own just because there's someone worse out there. Sending gay-porn spam to someone is rude, especially when it's their work e-mail. Yes, the guy is a jerk. We had an opportunity to show that we were really much better by taking proper formal actions, like notifying his/her employer. Should we really celebrate that we only intentionally harassed someone en masse? Of course sending gay-porn spam is nowhere near as bad as death threats, but that doesn't make it good either.
Posted by: WoodenBadger | July 14, 2008 4:45 PM
*Knock Knock*
Posted by: Dlux | July 14, 2008 4:46 PM
#44: "All walks of life are stained by the presence of a small number of idiots and assholes who are very vocal/visible. No group is immune from them and no group has more or less than any other."
No group is immune, certainly, but *some* groups have more than others. (Of course, it depends on a generally-accepted definition of 'idiots and assholes'.) A bigger issue is how to weed them out of the group you'd like to be part of. Not an easy or simple task, by any means.
Posted by: Raynfala | July 14, 2008 4:48 PM
I recommend posting the emails sans originating email address & IP address, but also forward the emails with full headers to a trusted group of people who are both willing and able to do some follow-up investigation and/or act as "witnesses".
The sad fact is, there are some nutters out there who would like to do nothing better than damage the collective reputation of atheists, and would probably stoop to sending equally violent and repugnant emails to the alleged senders under the pretense of "supporting" you.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 4:48 PM
Chris Granade (#45):
Shit happens.
Social problems are hydra-headed, and policies must be revised over time to reflect the lessons learned from painful experience. This is only a fundamental problem if you believe you started off in possession of Absolute Truth. A pragmatic rationalist can begin with a good idea, see how it works and replace it with a better idea to handle the ways it failed.
And on that note, I'm curious: P-Zed has issued a clarification that some actions (comparatively tame ones, even, which can be stopped by a decent spam filter) are ethically over the line. Has Bill Donohue done likewise? Where's the Catholic League press release saying, "Ixnay on the eth-day eats-thray, you guys, we're meant to be better than that"?
Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 4:50 PM
Cracker here, cracker there; hey who wants a cracker? Get them while they are still wafer thin and easy to swallow! Spread them with cheese or jam or anything you like for they will still be the same when your stomach gets to work on them and passes them along to the rectum where they will be evacuated as holy shit. Morons!
Posted by: Monti0 | July 14, 2008 4:51 PM
#53 Total agreement. Something should be done, but not a "mob mentality" type backlash.
Posted by: Chris Granade | July 14, 2008 4:52 PM
#54: Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to concern troll. I understand that shit happens and that this is an opportunity to do better. I support PZ on this one. I'm just somewhat disappointed that he has to tell us, his commenters, to calm down. It should be obvious from the get-go that this is nothing to harass people over. If it's serious enough to involve authorities, then it is. If not, then it's also not serious enough to harass.
Obviously we can and should learn, and PZ did better than Donohue (not hard there), so no, I don't think that "we're no better." Just that this didn't show our best side.
Posted by: Hal in Howell MI (not far from Hell, MI) | July 14, 2008 4:52 PM
Echo #4. Thanks, PZ.
Posted by: Patricia | July 14, 2008 4:56 PM
#17 - Your advise is as useful as your prayers for PZ. Fuck off.
Posted by: Orac | July 14, 2008 4:57 PM
What on earth did you expect, P.Z., posting the e-mails and the entire headers?
Clearly you didn't think things through.
Posted by: J | July 14, 2008 4:59 PM
No, what you said was that Pharyngula readers were just as dependent on faith in their argumentation than religious believers are, which is a common, and quite tired, accusation from those who have nothing else with which to rebut an argument. Intellectual dishonesty indeed...
I was addressing Brownian's "American Way" comment, dumbass. What I said in my last post was to be interpreted in that context. Obviously I wasn't denying what I plainly stated in post #18.
Posted by: stogoe | July 14, 2008 4:59 PM
I can't feel particularly bad about the spam. I tried, but I can't.
Death threats are vastly worse than spam spam spam spam eggs and spam. They called down the thunder, well now they got it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 5:00 PM
Teh Intartubes for the win once again.
Posted by: Peter | July 14, 2008 5:01 PM
Here is an idea. Release the email, block the identifying information for 1 month (until the post is buried) and then unblock the identifying information. That way the response will be less reactionary.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 14, 2008 5:01 PM
unicow wrote:
No, scrub everything, all headers, use just the message text. There is no need for us readers, who could be any kind of loons (who knows how many people I have buried in my backyard?), to have that kind of information. The people better trusted with that information is the FBI.
Don't count on every single one of so many readers being sane.
And by the way, PZ, what are you planning to do with all those saliva soaked, half dissolved, consecrated Communion wafers people have been sending you, if any? Have you thought about sending them to Bill Donohue with an apology about how you just didn't know he and his followers that dangerously crazy?
Posted by: IceFarmer | July 14, 2008 5:02 PM
Hey Blake,
I agree with you but I somehow don't see Bill Donahue wanting people to tone down the threats and rhetoric for quite some time. Sure, if this gets enough negative press (and he won't) he may release some sort of half hearted statement against it. It would be a purely political move. The Catholic League is banking on the religious fervor and anger growing and spreading. Freedom of speech and expression is a beautiful thing but Pharyngula loyalists should be vocal, literate, logical and firm in our resolve. Stepping into the gutter with the venemous cretins will only stiffen their resolve, close their ears and resort to the mud slinging that makes me for one puke. We're in this for the long run, it's best we stay the course.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 14, 2008 5:03 PM
A trisket, a trasket, a red and yellow basket. What happens when the turned around collar guys sneezes on the crackers? Do they still eat those?
Posted by: J | July 14, 2008 5:03 PM
No, what you said was that Pharyngula readers were just as dependent on faith in their argumentation than religious believers are...
That's a lie. I never said that. I was referring to "many" Pharygnula readers, not "most" -- let alone "all".
Posted by: The Physicist | July 14, 2008 5:03 PM
Just forward them to the FBI, PZ, there are no Catholics there.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 5:04 PM
So we should feel justified in behaving like Donohue?
I hold my self to a higher standard than that.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:05 PM
Chris Granade (#57):
I didn't think you were concern trolling, so no worries. I'd say we agree on the important point. Yeah, it's a bitch that people have to be reminded to shut up and think with an organ above the neckline. Every sizeable fandom needs a whack like this, now and then (I recall some Dresden Dolls fans got rather uppity when their favorite band decided to tour with Panic! At The Disco, but at least we got a music video out of the resulting kerfuffle).
Live and learn, I say: should our host get any more threatening letters, Isis forbid, he can redact the senders' last names, let's say, and publish only the domain part of the e-mail addresses. Transparency is a powerful tool, and like anything with sharp double edges, it requires practice — and a hilt! — to use properly.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 14, 2008 5:06 PM
I have a very good friend in the FBI that is catholic.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 14, 2008 5:11 PM
I have a very good friend in the FBI that is catholic.
Well if he would send them to the information specialist there, he wouldn't foward them over to the heritics division, I'm sure.
Posted by: IceFarmer | July 14, 2008 5:12 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp,
It seems that you may have misread my last post. I was writing that threats are a tactic that seems to work for them as it gets the masses all riled up and that WE shouldn't stoop to that level. Perhaps you'd care to read that latter half of my last post, maybe the previous one too. Thanks.
Posted by: John Robie | July 14, 2008 5:14 PM
I agree that it may be a bad idea to post the full email address, but perhaps a compromise would be to XXXX out the name but leave the domain and IP address.
I was going to email the 1800Flowers executive committee when I got home to let them know (respectfully of course) that either one of their employees was sending death threats from work, or they likely had a computer that was compromised. I would wait till I got home to keep MY employers IP out of this mess. Now I'll refrain even from that.
While internet retribution might be fun in a childish way, it's ultimately self-defeating especially against the religious. It just inflames the rhetoric and feeds into their delusions of persecution.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 5:15 PM
Ahh yes. Sorry. I'm way off today. In that case I agree.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:16 PM
Hey! Cut it out with the bad vibes, everybody. Recriminations solve nothing. Here: panda/kitten therapy.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 14, 2008 5:18 PM
Bark
A trisket, a trasket, a red and yellow basket. What happens when the turned around collar guys sneezes on the crackers? Do they still eat those?
Hrmmm? a good question, why don't you ask your good friend.
Posted by: Seeker | July 14, 2008 5:19 PM
And now for the lighter side of Crackergate:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/09/wafer/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/14/mass/
Posted by: Rarus.vir | July 14, 2008 5:24 PM
Cutting edge blogging sometimes get's noticed, as in this case. I hope sweeping policy changes don't follow, although I know they always do. But hell, where else can you get quality education and entertainment all at once? At least I know you'll never moderate comments, there's too many. But it has become a zoo in here lately. It's getting so bad, I hardly found time to work today. Perhaps you need to be a little less cutting edge, eh? LOL
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 14, 2008 5:25 PM
You've yet to define anything other than in terms of 'bad' when you don't like it, and 'good' when you do.
You've shown yourself to be little more than a concern troll at every opportunity J, so forgive me if I don't fall down in a rapturous seizure when you fling the word 'fundamentalist' around.
You bitch so much about what everybody else is doing, I'm starting to wonder if you shouldn't do it professionally. With all of use juvenile and fundamental atheists around, I'm sure Donohue could use a lackey like you.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 14, 2008 5:29 PM
Posted by: mayhempix | July 14, 2008 5:30 PM
Good idea that PZ posted a new lead message on the "Dump" thread. It was like "Groundhog Day" with late readers not checking earlier comments to see what had already transpired.
While not one of the, shall we say "excited ones" that sent off emails or phoned, I would posit that having previously clearly stated to send a message to the university president and not clearly stating what he did or did not want done when he posted the email headers, the eagerness of the response was not entirely a surprise.
The trolls who are trying to equate it with the hateful and threatening emails PZ received obviously don't see the difference. But then again they think a fucking cracker is the flesh of Jebus so I'm not surprised.
Posted by: Dave W. | July 14, 2008 5:30 PM
On scrubbing: the cat's out of the bag this time around. Given that Melanie Kroll's name appears on at least three other blogs already according to a quick Google (gotta love Greg Laden's suggestion to prank call the company, which will cost them some cash), who knows how many places it appears (with contact info?) that Google hasn't re-indexed in the last few days? Melanie is probably going to have to get used to a brand-new email address (whether she's innocent or not).
Posted by: Jim | July 14, 2008 5:32 PM
"They called down the thunder, well now they got it."
Actually, no, they didn't. They reacted to what they considered a threat. Had PZ not made the call to arms, these people wouldn't even know who he is and never would have emailed him.
You're entitled to your opinions. But based on what has been written about Webster Cook (cited by PZ), you know exactly how Catholics feel about the Eucharist. You can't make the types of threats that were made and not expect a reaction. Those two emails were out of line. They were wrong. But you can't exactly claim that they "called down the thunder". They reacted based on human instinct rather than with a cool head. But they didn't exactly start it.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:37 PM
It is, in fact, the perpetual whining of the concern trolls which is pushing me towards declaring that whatever P-Zed can do to a cracker, I can do worse. Moreover, if you push me to that point, I will announce my intention in song — and, Gentle Reader, you do not want to hear me sing.
"Anything he can do to a damn cracker / I can do harder and faster, it's true. . . ."
Please, people, think of the children. You have the power. Don't let this happen.
Posted by: speedwell | July 14, 2008 5:39 PM
I'm kind of surprised at all this. When someone is simply and demonstrably wrong (the Catholic doctrine that a cracker actually, really, becomes human/divine flesh), and their wrongness leads them to be a danger to others, sometimes you have to resort to loud noises and bright colors to get their attention and make them stop hurting people. That's all PZ did. What else would you have him do, step up to his local priest with his had held humbly in his two hands and say, "I'm sorry, Father, but I disagree with you"?
Posted by: speedwell | July 14, 2008 5:40 PM
HAT. Sheesh.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 14, 2008 5:40 PM
All I ever said is that there is an undesirable, irrational, anti-everything-American climate on Pharyngula.
Well that's not quite true. Nearly, but not quite - you've also said Islam is given an easy ride due to "political correctness" (and to forestall the inevitable accusation of lying, you've said a few other things as well). You've repeated both your main claims numerous times - but they are still just as false as the first time you said them, and much more boring.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:44 PM
Pharyngula has an "anti-everything American culture"? Feh. I hereby proclaim my fervent support for apple pie. Now, I will be satisfied with nothing less than total evisceration from other commenters, followed by summary banning by PZ.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:49 PM
Blast. s/culture/climate
Posted by: SC | July 14, 2008 5:51 PM
I hereby proclaim my fervent support for apple pie.
If you have it with a nice slice of cheddar, for breakfast, you can even be an honorary Yankee :).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 5:53 PM
What the hell does this even mean?
Posted by: jj | July 14, 2008 5:53 PM
Hey PZ,
I'd suggest still posting the threatening emails you receive, but definitely remove the headers, and their email address, or at leased the domain. I think you should make it public how these so called Catholics are reacting. The header of the message gives a lot of info, and as a person running an exchange server, when I saw the version number and IP pop up in that header, i dreaded to think what could happen if that was my server (granted you can get this info from sending a bunk email, but making that info public isn't very good).
And that 1800Flowers guy, if he really is using his corporate email for sending threats, you should contact the company and let them know that this is abuse of their network, and that they are responsible for whatever comes through that server. I believe the teleco