I received the following anonymous comment on yesterday's article on Molly Kagan, the Tallahassee Millenialist who insists that Barack Obama is a "false prophet" revealed in the Book of Matthew, and how her experience demonstrates the effects of a kind of child abuse visited on the children of Fundamentalists. I think the replies are very pious bits of writing, and since they came with a dare that I wouldn't approve them all I thought I'd bump them up to entry status:
Wow. What a disappointing piece of garbage you are. I bet your pussy is bigger than Molly Kagan's. Why don't you lift your skirt and show us your pussy, pussy boy?A few minutes later, I also received a second anonymous comment. This one claims overtly to be from Molly Kagan:
and I can see why you moderate your comments. because pussypussies are afraid of the truth about them.
edit out my comments, pussy. i know about them, and so do you, and that's all that needs to know.
July 6, 2008 7:51 PM
This is a cease and desist notification. My blog is registered with MyFreeCopyright.com.Because I, like many other bloggers, use SiteMeter, I can see from where comments are coming and how the person leaving them arrived at my page. According to sitemeter, the person who left the comments came by following a link used for approving comments on the Tallahassee Democrat blogs:
July 6, 2008 8:03 PM
I attempted to leave a comment on Kagan's blog pointing her at my critique of her Bible-fueled ravings in order that she have the opportunity to respond, and clearly she has... because only the author of her blog would be able to see that link. The comment was never approved. Only she could have seen the pointer and only she could have clicked on the link above.
Of course, the hypocrisy of someone criticizing me for having comment moderation turned on while refusing to approve my own comment on their blog is incredibly blatant, and I must admit that I had considered rejecting the "pussy boy" raving at first. It's exactly the kind of contentless stream of nastiness I occasionally receive from Fundamentalists — sometimes punctuated by the hysterical notion that the person who has written it will "pray for me." But I gave Kagan the opportunity to respond as she saw fit, and she did exactly that. Moreover, the string of epithets referring to her own genitalia with a derogatory term illustrate precisely the kind of self-loathing that the Fundamentalist abuse she suffered as a child engenders. It also, I think, well demonstrates the mentality at work and serves as a good example of what's roiling just below the Millenialist facade of piety and righteousness. These are people who've been brought up to hate the world and all the people in it who aren't like them. These are people who are waiting around to see mounds of bodies piled up in the streets.
The second comment is a rather vague threat. Neither this blog nor Kagan's are written for commercial purposes, and the reproduction of her rantings about Obama were precisely intended to reach the public free of charge. My quotation of them in no way impedes that purpose. Since Kagan isn't paid to write and neither am I, there are no possible damages here. As anyone who writes a private blog can tell you, our articles get reproduced all the time. Case in point, this reproduction of my previous article about the Texas Supreme Court and exorcism. This is part of life in the blogosphere. In my case, I used the reproduced material as a basis for a critique that is longer than the original piece, as an example that in the end wasn't as good as the string of epithets and threats issued by Kagan herself. I think it's covered by Fair Use and since there are no recoverable damages from my having quoted it, it's not really an important point.
The point that is worth noting is that there's no attempt made to refute the arguments I presented. There's no attempt to deconstruct what I've written, to demonstrate any inconsistencies or fallacious reasoning. When the Millennialist gasbag, who feels absolutely justified in trying to damage the prospects of someone running for president by resorting to fear-mongering and emotional appeal, gets punctured, she vents pure hate. That she would go so far as to insinuate that she has been damaged by a discussion of her claims is the same kind of hypocrisy that is exemplified by her criticism of my comment moderation after she rejected publication of my own comment to her blog.
This is Millennialism in a nutshell. These people are damaged goods at best, ticking time bombs of hostility and resentment toward humanity at worst. Their Bible makes for a fine justification, in their own minds, for their own hopes that others will suffer and, as importantly, that they'll get to wring their hands in sadistic glee while they watch their cosmic hitman level the sword at the infidel's neck.
I've approved Kagan's swearing and comments in this one case to illustrate the point of yesterday's article. Now that it's done, I don't plan to make a habit of it. Further bile such as this, should it appear here, will not be approved for publication.