Islamic apologetics in the International Journal of Cardiology

I’ve run into this particular phenomenon many times: the True Believer in some musty ancient mythology tells me that his superstition is true, because it accurately described some relatively modern discovery in science long before secular scientists worked it out. It’s always some appallingly stupid interpretation of a vaguely useless piece of text that wouldn’t have made any sense until it was retrofitted to modern science. My particular field of developmental biology has been particularly afflicted with this nonsense, thanks to one man, Dr. Keith L. Moore, of the University of Toronto. He’s the author or co-author on several widely used textbooks in anatomy and embryology — and they are good and useful books! — but he’s also an idiot. He has published ridiculous claims that the Qur’an contains inexplicably detailed descriptions of the stages of human development, implying some sort of divine source of information.

I’ve mentioned this before. For instance, the old book claims that at one point the embryo looks like a piece of chewed gum, or mudghah, and Moore announces, “by golly, it does, sorta”, throwing away all the knowledge we have about the structure and appearance of the actual embryo, which is not a chewed lump. I’ve actually seen these kooks show pictures of a piece of gum and an embryo and declare that they are similar. It’s insane. It’s pareidolia run amuck and swamping out actual scientific information for the sake of propping up useless superstitions.

Here’s Moore himself, endorsing the divinity of Allah on the basis of mudghah.

You may not have heard of him before, but I regularly get email from Muslims telling me that as a developmental biologist, I ought to follow Islam because of its insights into embryology, which don’t exist. Thanks, Dr Moore, you dumbass.

Well, now the Muslim cranks have another coup, having persuaded some other dumbasses to publish an appallingly bad paper in the International Journal of Cardiology, a credible peer-reviewed journal. Or, at least, formerly credible.

The paper is disgracefully bad. It’s basically a compendium of an assortment of references to anatomy and health from the Qur’an, endorsing them as accurate sources of information. For instance, the Qur’an prescribes three techniques for healing, “honey, cupping, and cauterization,” and gosh, we now know that “Honey contains the therapeutic contents sugars, vitamins, anti-microbials, among other things”!

Are you impressed yet?

Since this is a cardiology journal, the article also finds it necessary to waste the readers’ time with blather about blood and arteries. Here’s an example of the Prophet’s profound knowledge of the circulatory system.

Another great vessel mentioned in the Qur’an is the Al-Aatín or aorta “We would certainly have seized his right hand and cut off his Al-Watín,” [20]. Al-Watín has been translated into different, yet similar words, including “aorta”, “life-artery”, and simply “artery”. This verse is taken to mean that if the Prophet Mohammed was lying about the teachings of God, then God would have grabbed the Prophet Mohammad’s arm and cut a vital artery, certainly killing Mohammad. This verse confirms that 1. Blood was indeed viewed as a vehicle for life and 2. The artery directly leading from the heart is vital to survival. By analyzing the different translations and exegesis of Al-Watín, it can be safely assumed that it is the aorta that the author of the Qur’an is referring to in this verse.

Hmmm. So a warlike society that had many soldiers running about chopping into people with swords was aware that cutting major arteries would lead to rapid blood loss and death. I have no idea how they could have figured that out without an omniscient god whispering the explanation into the ears of priests.

The holy book also talks about heart disease, something else a readership of cardiologists would find interesting. Does this sound like well-informed medicine to you?

The Qur’an shares with the Hadeeth a metaphorical description of the heart as a possessor of emotional faculties, thus giving the heart many characteristics that modern science attributes to the brain. As is popularly stated in Islamic culture, every action is dependent upon intentions, and “…what counts is [to God] the intention of your hearts…”. These actions, whether “good” or “bad” determine the health of the heart, namely if it is a sound or diseased heart. A diseased heart is one filled with qualities such as doubt, hypocrisy, and ignorance among many others. Possessors of such qualities have a “hardened,” diseased heart. Other malaise qualities contributing to a diseased heart includes blasphemy, rejection of truth, deviation, sin, corruption, aggressiveness, negligence, fear, anger, and jealousy, among others.

The authors of the Qur’an and of this paper seem to have confused poetic metaphor with science.

Yeah, the article also repeats Moore’s nonsense about embryology. There’s much, much more: read the original paper for yourself, or this excellent critique that also points out all the conveniently omitted parts where the Qur’an gets everything completely wrong.

How did this crap manage to get published? Once again, we have a disgraceful failure of peer-review to weed out obvious religious propaganda, allowing an Islamic tract to appear under the guise of a scientific article. Just the fact that the references consist almost entirely of citations to pages of the Qur’an ought to have triggered some concern. I’d like to know what went wrong in the reviewing process that allowed garbage like this to make it onto the pages of the International Journal of Cardiology. Write to the editor and demand an accounting; also make them squirm in embarrassment and appreciate the damage that has been done to their credibility.

And remember: ancient holy books are sources of lies and misinformation, not science.

Loukas M, et al, The heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur’an and Hadeeth, Int J Cardiol (2009), doi:10.1016/j. ijcard.2009.05.011

We got a Spratlin fired

I had no idea. The poor bigot wrote that nasty anti-gay screed that I criticized, and the Examiner decided that his plagiarizing hateful ways were not exactly what they wanted to promote.

He has complained on his blog about how Christians are a persecuted minority, starring Daniel Spratlin as Christ.

You can berate and belittle any Christian or Christian belief you want but if you do it to a Muslim, Jew, homosexual, black person, etc. you are called a vast array of vitriolic names such as bigot, hater, inciter of violence, intolerant, religious nut, etc.

I learned this first hand a couple of weeks ago. I used to (note the past tense) work as an independent contractor writing on Reformed theology for Examiner.com. Why do I say “used to”? Well, my last article linked to Albert Mohler’s article regarding the suicide of a gay Rutger’s student. Apparently you just aren’t able to express your view any view that is critical of another’s view unless that view being criticized has anything to do with Christianity. This means being even the least bit critical of the sin called homosexuality will lead to a barrage of outlandish claims, threats of physical violence and a myriad of other consequences by those who claim that you are the one with the problem.

Take, for example, a man that I’d never heard of (thanks be to God) by the name of PZ Myers. He just couldn’t stand by why I actually had the audacity to speak ill of sin. He wrote this disjointed piece a couple of days after my post. (NOTE: This “man” is unable to engage in civil conversation so please be aware of vile language in his writing.) “Why is he so full of hate,” you may ask. Well, Johnny, when a person’s heart is so absolutely hardened to God, he will act like the heathen that he is. It is the way man is due to the Fall. It really shouldn’t surprise me but, then again, I always want to be surprised by sin in all its forms.

I guess I have to cut another notch in the handle of my cyberpistol.

NO RELATION!

Kevin Myers is some wackalooney Irish commentator who, as far as I know and as fervently as I hope, is no recent relation to this Myers — the only thing I can commend him on is that he manages to spell his last name correctly. Oh, we do have one other thing in common: we’re both atheists. He’s an idiot atheist, though, so I wash my hands of him. He recently made this admission while also acknowledging his flaming hypocrisy.

Now what follows is quite hypocritical. For, on the one hand, I simply don’t believe in God, because I am intellectually unable to; but on the other, I prefer a society which generally respects and reveres a god, and the organised system of pieties and rules that a god-based religion generates. The alternative seems to be a secular-dementia that makes godlike figures of such as Rooney [some football star I know nothing about –pzm]. I would have once said that there was little worse than the vulgar basilica at Knock, and the debased and semi-hysterical cult surrounding it — but surely, it doesn’t compare in sheer bloody awfulness with the frenzied adoration generated by soccer or television celebrity-worship.

How condescending. He’s too smart to be anything but an atheist; but all the little people out there, the dull dumb mob, why…they need religion so that they’ll obediently maintain his life in the style to which he is accustomed. There are plenty of idiot atheists like that, and they’re usually conservative/libertarian assholes. Personally, I would rather not live in a society of pious rules-followers; I want everyone’s intelligence respected and nurtured and encouraged to flower. My ideal society is one that is getting better and discovering new ideas and bringing everyone along, not just some smug elite that thinks they’re better than everyone else.

The credulousness that has caused people to turn to a god is so universal that it must be in our DNA. In other words, it is an evolved characteristic, which has proved beneficial to those who have possessed it. Groups of primitive man who didn’t believe in a god simply perished. Clearly, possessing this belief — presumably because it helped to create a moral order — conferred a decisive survival-advantage which non-believing groups fatally lacked.

So, mankind will always need its gods: that’s in our genes.

But wait, Kevin…are you not human? Did you fail to inherit this precious strand of DNA? Do you consider yourself unfit, doomed to die as a detriment to society?

There is no evidence that humans without god-belief died because of it. There is no evidence that atheism is genetically determined. There is no reason to believe that those of us who do not hold in faith are somehow biologically special — I certainly don’t regard myself as unusual, and consider my youthful departure from religion to be a consequence of early experience and education in science. I also don’t look at believers and figure they’re all crippled from birth.

It’s simply idiotic to declare that humanity will always believe in gods because of a genetic predisposition while noting that some of us don’t believe and also feel no stress or loss because of our disbelief — apparently it’s not in our genes.

Mr Myers (oh, how it pains me to use that name in this context!) has another peculiarity: he’s a self-loathing atheist who also thinks, along with the Pope and a host of other deluded souls, that secularism has been the great evil of the 20th century.

And no one ever suggested that gods were always good: look at the Aztecs, feeding their children to their ferocious deity: the Ashanti much the same. And in our post-religious culture, we have seen, in all their splendour, the celebrities whom people worship in the absence of a creator-god in their firmament: Madonna, or Lindsay Lohan, or Piers Morgan, or Simon Cowell — or even Wayne Rooney.

And they’re the good ones, before we come to the great secular gods of the 20th century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot. They all triumphed in political cultures of obligatory godlessness. Remember — there have, in fact, been few societies which made godlessness mandatory: and without exception, they soon degenerated into orgies of murder. And maybe that’s what happened to the early hominids: those who didn’t have a god, in other words, those who didn’t fear consequence, rapidly disappeared in a welter of homicidal bloodshed.

Repeat after me: Hitler was not an atheist. He was a crazy Catholic. None of these people, horrible as they were, killed in the name of secularism or atheism, but in the name of specific ideologies…and they also tended to set up cults of personality. I know nothing about this Wayne Rooney with whom Mr Myers is obsessed, but I don’t think he’s a major figure in 21st century atheism, and for all I know he’s a devout Presbyterian; it doesn’t seem to matter to Kevin Myers. Madonna is a weird New Agey kabbalist and former Catholic…again, not an atheist. I don’t know what Lindsay Lohan’s religious beliefs are, but I doubt that all of her fans (does she have any any more?), or even a majority of her fans, are unchurched.

Maybe he should look a little deeper into his own assertions. He claims that societies that have made “godlessness mandatory” have collapsed. It could be that it isn’t the “godlessness” part that has been destructive, but the “mandatory” part, and that tyrannies that try to dictate the beliefs of citizens, no matter what those beliefs are, are going to fall apart in internal strife.

Not that I expect Kevin Myers to ever think that deeply about his own ideas. He seems to be content with his hypocrisy and self-contradiction.

Hey, if atheist views are so likely to disintegrate healthy social values, shouldn’t he be quarantining himself, and voluntarily hiding his unfit self so that he can continue to reap the benefits of a godly society?

Evolution is not enough

Really, it isn’t enough to simply “believe” in evolution: it’s more important to understand it and more deeply, to have an intellectual commitment to reason. There’s a beautiful example of this principle in Iowa right now.

Iowa allowed gay marriage in the state a while back, and good for them…only now there’s a bit of pushback and the offended conservatives are lashing out at the judges responsible. Look at this fallacious reasoning from one opponent of gay marriage.

Randy Crawford of Iowa City said he intends to vote for the removal of the justices because he is concerned about the judiciary overstepping its reach and also about the propensity of homosexuals within his community.

“My primary reason for being here is because I believe the Supreme Court should not be legislating from the bench. But I also believe that homosexuality is bad thing,” he said. “It used to be useful when we were cavemen and we needed people to guard the caves full of women and children. If I’m a guy out hunting, I want to leave someone back at the cave tending to my wife and kids, and I don’t want a normal guy having that kind of access to my wife and kids. So, in our evolution, you can see that there use to be a utility for homosexuality, but that was when we were cavemen and we aren’t cavemen anymore. So, homosexuality is obsolete.”

That is an awesome just-so story. It’s also complete nonsense. So, were gay guys incapable of hunting? Were paleolithic women so incapable that they had to have a man, even a gay man, hanging about to take care of them? What exactly were the gay cavemen doing back in the cave with the women? Who’s tending to the modern women, replacing the gay cavemen and making them redundant?

I can invent my own just-so stories, too, and I couldn’t help but imagine life 20,000 years ago with Caveman Randy and Caveman PZ.

Caveman Randy: Ugh. We go kill mammoth with spears.

Caveman PZ: Alas, yes. More strenuous exercise and battling dangerous wild animals. I wish we’d get around to developing universities so I could live a lifestyle more suitable to my delicate frame.

Caveman Randy: You talk funny. Don’t know if me like you behind me. Grab spear, hunt like man. We go now.

Caveman PZ: Of course, because penetrating great beasts with long pointy objects is the epitome of masculinity, and you and I are so much alike, you macho hunk of raging overcompensation.

Caveman Randy: You…like…men? You mock great hunt?

Caveman PZ: I might like men better if they bathed now and then, and could actually carry a conversation more substantial than sporadic grunts. And I can think of much more pleasant ways to spend my time then sweatily plodding over the tundra looking for meat on the hoof.

Caveman Randy: Me get you now, ho ho. You one of those cavemen. <cunning look flits over his face> Me have idea. You stay here. Guard cave. Keep cavewoman out of trouble.

Caveman PZ: You mean that cave over there? The one full of nubile half-naked women who haven’t discovered underwear yet, and who are going to be bored out of their minds while you fellows are off guzzling fermented yak milk and throwing sticks at ugly great beasties for a few days?

Caveman Randy: Yeah. You make hair pretty or something. Me take Cavemen Geraldo instead — him more buff than you, knows how to handle a spear, not stereotypical effete fop like you — you safe with women.

Caveman PZ: I certainly am! You and Caveman Geraldo go have fun thrusting your spears, and I’ll keep the cave cozy and contented.

And the tribe hummed along happily, and its numbers increased, and everyone was happy.

Fusty nonsense from a creationist loon

Michael Egnor must be fishing for traffic to the graveyard of rotting ideas that the Discovery Institute calls a blog. He claims to honestly want to understand what positive values the New Atheists have, so he posted a quiz for Larry Moran and invited the authors of various blogs — all of which get more traffic and are livelier than his, and also, by the way, allow comments, making his request rather disingenuous.

His questions are so far out of it that I’m not really interested in answering them. It’s like a particularly crusty and dogmatic alchemist stirring beneath the cobwebs of his dead discipline to query a 21st century scientist about chemistry, and all he can muster is quaint questions about platonic solids, the four elements, and the philosopher’s stone.

1) Why is there anything?
2) What caused the Universe?
3) Why is there regularity (Law) in nature?
4) Of the Four Causes in nature proposed by Aristotle (material, formal, efficient, and final), which of them are real? Do final causes exist?
5) Why do we have subjective experience, and not merely objective existence?
6) Why is the human mind intentional, in the technical philosophical sense of aboutness, which is the referral to something besides itself? How can mental states be about something?
7) Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)
8) Why is there evil?

My fast and flippant answers:

1) Nothing is unstable.
2) Nothing caused it.
3) We wouldn’t be here if there wasn’t.
4) Material & efficient. How bizarre to think Aristotle is even relevant, except as a historical factor, or that ancient categories are apposite.
5) An epiphenomenon of the fact of instantiation.
6) Because minds aren’t isolated, but a product of brain+environment.
7) It doesn’t.
8) Evil is simply anti-human, and most of the universe is against us.

Egnor claims to want to learn what New Atheists really believe. He’s lying. He also won’t learn it by simply imposing the cracked and cloudy lens of his superstition to views that are clear and unmarred, and mostly not even concerned with the nonsense that clutters his head.

Go ahead, you can answers his comments in this thread, too. Just keep in mind every time you do that if he were honestly interested, Egnor would have allowed you to comment over there.

Although, if you want to have fun, it might be more entertaining to summarize IDiots. Egnor also writes down his “New Atheism Cliff Notes”:

1) There are no gods
2) Theists are IDiots
3) Catholic priests molest children.

The best three-line summary of Intelligent Design creationists gets its own post with credit to the author.

I get email

Sometimes they sucker me. I thought James was writing a nice letter, at first.

I found your site to be entertaining. I must say after reading the comments from your site I can see where the problem really is in this country. The fools follow the leaders of silly nonsense.

See? It sort of sounds like he’s agreeing with me. Little did I know how he was using the word “entertaining”, which isn’t always complimentary. James is probably more familiar with the word in its less than flattering sense. Like when he turns to his date after sex to murmur, “Was it good for you, baby?” and she replies, “It was…entertaining.”

In the same way, James dashes my ego on the jagged rocks of his disapproval with the very next sentence.

You are either very immature or a godless liberal fool. Both would suffice based on your gibberish about evolution.

Nooooo! I am crushed…but wait. What’s that? The last sentence above — it simply ruins the effect. Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy — you need to work on your delivery. The insult is fine, but don’t follow through with a statement that reveals your clownish nature. For instance, don’t do this:

“You are a fool. I wear my underpants on my head.”

Do you get my point? Take the underpants off your head before you try to pretend you’re a serious critic. Otherwise, the target will find themselves unable to take you at all seriously.

Scared your degree will be worthless? One day it will be when folks realize the dummying down of science to adjust to your religion..Scientism. That’s all it is.

Well, gosh, I’m not too scared. After all, my degree is almost worthless, economically. When you figure that I could have become a refrigerator repairman straight out of high school, I’ve given up a tremendous amount of money to get this degree, so it’s actually less than worthless.

I bet refrigerator repairmen don’t get dunned with dopey email about how they had to be dumbed down to believe that refrigerators actually work, or how they must worship coolants, and how Jesus uses his freeze ray to make things cold. I missed such an opportunity.

I was made to believe evolution while at University to be fact and never be doubted as not to be the only explanation of life.

Aaaiieeaaa! That sentence cries out in torment. My degree is at least good enough for alleviating the suffering of the English language a little bit. How about, “While I was at University, I was made to believe that evolution was a fact, never to be doubted as the only explanation for life.” Maybe you can use that when you recycle your complaint to Jerry Coyne or something.

That is when I knew the wolves were among us.

Thank you. That’s better than calling me a teddy bear, but not quite as nice as squid. I’m sure sheep find themselves intimidated by wolves all the time.

It’s nice to be educated, but not to be indoctrinated by pompous asses that believe they hold the key to all truths.

The letter is improving. I quite agree. It’s why I don’t go to church.

Good day..godless liberal fool…James

Too late, you’re still wearing underpants on your head, James!

Mike Adams is a nasty piece of work

Mike Adams must really hate the “It gets better” campaign, which is trying to give gay kids some hope, rather than letting them die of despair. Being Mike Adams, though, the only way he can deal with it is by lying. So he writes an essay in which he describes eight heterosexual kids who were hounded into suicide by homosexuals, just for parities sake, I guess.

Only he didn’t. All eight cases are based on true events of young Republican nitwits getting slapped down for anti-homosexual bigotry…but the part where Adams says “and then they killed themselves”? Total fabrication. In every case, without exception, the poor ‘victim’ lashed out to sue someone, instead.

It’s repugnant. It attempts to reverse the arrow of victimhood, making the bullies out to be oppressed and blaming the dead for their situation. It’s exactly what you’d expect of a christofascist thug with no moral compass at all. It’s Mike Adams.

At the very end of his eight lies, he ‘fesses up and manages to make it even worse.

These eight cases are all true except for one thing: The Christians who were bullied by gays and gay activists are all still alive. Not a single one has committed suicide. That is because they have centered their lives around Jesus Christ, rather than their sexual identity. And no amount of bullying can change my mind about that.

Please wrap your head around this unfortunate fact: Christians are the overwhelming majority. These eight people were not in circumstances at all similar to the gay kids who were isolated, alone, incessantly treated as filth, and bullied until they surrendered. Those kids were also not necessarily atheists — they were mostly brought up to believe in this Jesus fable, and it is a lie to pretend that gays are automatically non-religious (it’s rather a shame that they aren’t—we’d be rather closer to the goal of a godless majority if suddenly all who reject that callous, judgmental conservative Christianity really were atheists).

It seems that centering your life around Jesus Christ makes you a litigious, arrogant jerk, so maybe that isn’t the best strategy for surviving Christian thuggery. I think the It gets better project is a better model for a moral life; I’d rather see people center their lives around hope than around damnation and death.

It must be Obvious Day!

I know. You’re still trying to get over the shock of learning that little Billy Dembski admits to being a biblical literalist. Brace yourself for this one, then: Glenn Beck is also a creationist, and his reasons are really, really stupid.

You know, if you know so little about evolution that you think the fact that monkeys aren’t turning into humans is a credible argument, maybe you should have “MORON” tattooed across your forehead.

Evolution is an engine of diversity. It produces “endless forms most beautiful”, to quote the guy who thought it up. Asking why different species don’t all evolve into us is about as dumb as asking why every kaleidoscope doesn’t produce the same image every time you turn it.

For people who worship the constitution, they sure don’t know what is in it

Video is not Christine O’Donnell’s friend — every time she opens her mouth she exposes her ugly, ignorant side. The latest faux pas comes from here performance in a debate with her opponent in which she reveals she hasn’t read the first amendment, and is surprised by what’s in it.

Here’s the relevant part:

“Let me just clarify,” O’Donnell pressed. “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

“The government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons said, summarizing the gist of the specific words in the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell asked again, eliciting further laughter from the room.

This is a fairly common talking point among lunatics of the far right. It is literally true that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution, but the first amendment is still quite clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means you don’t get to use the influence of government to help promote your cult. It also promises not to get in the way of your evangelizing, but that the state itself is going to be neutral.

We also have a lunatic running for secretary of state in Minnesota who has been saying the same thing as O’Donnell.

Quite often you hear people say, ‘What about separation of church and state?’ There is no such thing. I mean it just does not exist, and it does not exist in America for a purpose, because we are a Christian nation. We are a nation based on Christian principles and ideals, and those are the things that guarantee our liberties. It is one of those things that is so fundamental to the freedoms that we have that when you begin to restrict our belief and our attestation to our Christian values you begin to restrict our liberties. You simply cannot continue a nation as America without that Christian base of liberty.

It seems rather obvious to me. The constitution saying that no state religion shall be established is in direct contradiction with anyone claiming that Christianity is our state religion.

I get email from a Spratlin

Hmmm. I just chewed out one repulsive little Spratlin named Daniel, when I get this email from a Spratlin named Ric. It’s a vaguely threatening email, too.

From: Ric Spratlin
Subject: There’s never a shortage of smarm among evangelicals
Date: October 12, 2010 3:44:20 PM CDT
To: PZ Myers Reply-To: [email protected]
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: by 10.216.183.144 with SMTP id q16cs155211wem; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.174.147 with SMTP id t19mr6103964qaz.262.1286916248284;
Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fmailhost05.isp.att.net (fmailhost05.isp.att.net [204.127.217.105])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r17si12858135qcs.142.2010.10.12.13.44.06; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ric (adsl-176-44-239.asm.bellsouth.net[74.176.44.239]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc05)
with SMTP id <20101012204405H0500flf7be>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:44:06 +0000
Return-Path:
Received-Spf: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of [email protected] designates
204.127.217.105 as permitted sender) client-ip=204.127.217.105;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of [email protected]
designates 204.127.217.105 as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass [email protected]
Dkim-Signature: v=1; q=dns/txt; d=att.net; s=dkim01; [email protected]; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1286916246;
h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject: To:From; bh=inWfaHJ74LyLR8v2lCUaxR9pS2QN4b+/+4Ch4q6ZkBA=; b=n9J
2aWwz5y+EIoZfFWY59b5MPk9EVqkat24w059zNTc7Q5Rau2LhD0RixCP6v5ga5cy2WU TUqXWQG7s+ltvYrg==
X-Originating-Ip: [74.176.44.239]
Organization: Yellow Pages Consulting
Message-Id: <3723CFD5B0914A0B85C39A95233A1646@Ric>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=”—-=_NextPart_000_00AD_01CB6A2C.B8A66910″
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: ActqTj7V4kmAFFdcS4iBHtLOO9MfYg==
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931

Mr. (I use the term loosely) Myers,

As a college professor, you should be accustomed to different points of views no matter what the subject matter might be advocating. Why not embrace another view point rather than using your little professor-ship title to belittle an individual.

In the real world which you seem to not live in, belittling can cause harm in many ways, even to oneself.

Careful my fellow citizen.

Best regards,

Ric

I feel no need to embrace the fallacious point of view of a blinkered bigot, thank you. And I don’t respond cheerfully to veiled threats from pissant Christianists.

Uh-oh. More email from the sprat. You’re all annoying him.

Tell all your BULLSHIT friends to keep sending me emails on your behalf, since you have no balls to do it yourself. My junk folder can hold billions.

Best Regards,

Ric

Now don’t spam the poor confused fellow; if you’re writing to chat with him, that’s all right. But I’m not at all interested in talking to him, myself.