To those who think it's appropriate to post non-specific death threats in comments on Friday Sprog Blogs.

...but it also means the rare death threat is not going to post without me approving it.

There are death threats that you would approve?

OK, I just re-read your post of last Friday and I am still having a hard time figuring out what the commenter was riled up about or how they inferred anything other than:

a) it was a classroom, and;

b) it had a snake.

My compliments on your calm, reasoned approach, but you must admit PZ's Comic Sans and Gumby background method does have a visceral appeal.

The same comment is posted on every Sb blog, many other blogs and forums, by a well-known psychologically deranged person. At random posts. We are deleting them as fast as we can (I deleted three of them today already, exactly the same text and link and signature each time).

I was going to comment similarly, but then I read another Sciblog post, and it appears this commenter reared its hideousness there as well. Based on the phrasing I assume it's the same thing. And that post had nothing whatever to do with atheism, as was the case with yours as well, unless it was something to do with not treating the snake as the devil or some such nonsense.

I didn't read your previous post, but if i'm reading through the current lines correctly, Greg Laden just got a visit from this guy. PZ's had many dealings with him.

Orac also got one of these on a post totally unrelated to religion. This lunatic seems to be making the rounds.

Ugh, I am so sorry SB has to deal with this.

I got it too. I'm pretty sure it's just our proximity to PZ - I doubt the individual even reads our blogs.

I got a similarly toned email from a different (?) source while visiting my mother on Christmas. I had to reply and ask what was Christian about making death threats to people you don't even know while they were spending Christmas with family. Then I blocked the ass.

Anyway, this stuff only happens since I moved to Sb. It's definitely because we blog here.

Ok, Coturnix, that helps explain things. That doesn't make it less scary, I imagine, but it may feel less personal and hurtful now. Either way Dr. Free-ride, I'm sorry you had to be the recipient of such a hateful comment.

But you have, you have foresaken life eternal by turning your back on christ in the pursuit of sinful, godless reason. Here's the proof (in an easy to follow barbara type syllogism)

All humans are things that will die
All Freerides are human*
All Freerides are things that will die

Only three ways out, forfeit your sense, your humanity, or both like your antagonist has. I'd be more worried over the fact that many students in your department would label following such an approach to get a foothold on ethical problems as "dogma". They, at least, are in college. Who knows? They might, maybe be there because they want to learn and become better people. Worry about them, not the net trolls, they're a lost cause and probably harmless unless you're using your secret stash of horded office supplies to perform abortions.

*Unless you know something you're not telling me. Your kids aren't teenagers yet, so I'm prety sure this clause still applies.

I got one too and so did Chris at HA. So I think it was just going around. But, yuck.

Sorry, one last thing. Something a polisci professor of mine once said. He said it regarding the G.O.P., but it's equally appropriate in this case. You have to treat poor behavior in people like this in the same way you would treat it with a dog or a very young child, just ignore it. Bringing light to it, even a negative light, is attention and that just serves as positive reinforcement. They got their point across and they know it. It's better to seethe silently a little bit and let them think themselves totally ineffectual, they may stop as a result. They certainly won't if you get angry and show it. If you fear as a result then they have won. That is a triumph of the very small over the very great and that cannot be allowed.

"Second of all, ....

Janet, maybe I'm a bit off topic but, this particular expression is being used by millions, both educated and uneducated, people yet, it is, language-wise (any language), wrong. Placement (first, second, third, etc) means to indicate the order by which we place on a list people, things, principles, whatever. Only FIRST can be "FIRST OF ALL." SECOND is only as such in relation to the first, not to ALL, since "second of all" actually means being placed after or behind ALL the others.

Threats to one's sprogs are never acceptable. Even multi-blog spam threats are not ok. Sorry to hear you had to deal with such nonsense.