This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by pyjamaslug

Go to: Fulton, Mississippi: Skeeviest town in America

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by pyjamaslug

@ TylerDurden:

Would you be defending their "training wheel" mentality if the excluded students were black?

No, I would not. There is a general consensus about racism which is absent in the discussion of homosexuality. This means that young people are not subjected to the same pressures and conflicting loyalties in that case. We are not talking about right or wrong here, but about the stress it put on these seniors' immature worldview and whether they should be blamed for being immature at that stage in their lives. I say no, and am willing to wait for them to become truly independent before judging them.

The remainder of your comments about personal responsibility, etc etc show such a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the state of mind of most high school seniors that I can only conclude you were a goth or an emo!


Thu, 08 Apr 2010 06:13:00 UTC | #457064

Go to: Fulton, Mississippi: Skeeviest town in America

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by pyjamaslug

@ philip 1978

The young people are being taught that it is ok to alienate and ostracise people who are being made to look "different" - that has to stop.

No, they are not. The culture these days in just about every part of America is very aware of intolerance and young people generally are the first to promote inclusion and tolerance (there are exceptions but not really so very many). What these young people very likely learned is just how bigoted and fearful their parents are; in my own life that was a transformative experience so I can imagine it will be the same for many of these children.

This kind of thinking is where the main problem lies - Awww poor little teenagers have to come to terms with reality! They are 18 years old - they are about to go into universities and colleges all around America where there are going to thousands of more lesbians, homosexuals, bi-sexuals, transgender - you name it, they will encounter it - there should be nothing to be afraid of. They should be able to accept it but instead your suggestion is to keep them blinded from this - how is that going to teach them anything but bigotry and ignorance?

I made no suggestion: that was all your own work.

Your expectations of teenagers are completely unrealistic whereas mine, based on having raised a couple of well-adjusted adults myself, are somewhat more grounded in reality.

Ask yourself this: if these children are so complete and well-formed, why is it necessary for them to go to university? What could they learn?
Look into your own life: have you learned nothing and failed to mature since you reached the magic 18 yrs?

High school seniors in the US are subjected to intense pressure at a very difficult time in their lives. One of the most intense is to act out their parents' fantasies about high school prom. This sordid episode is just another aspect of that collective fantasy.

Let's be sure to put the blame for this squarely where it lies: with the adults.


Thu, 08 Apr 2010 05:47:00 UTC | #457058

Go to: Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by pyjamaslug


Reis (sic) wants to include creationism as a sop to Islamic students

Reading between the lines, are we? Or maybe you had divine inspiration!

Does he not see that bringing up their cherished fuckwitted beliefs... and then trashing them will only add fuel to the fire, not to mention completely disrupt the lesson

Perhaps it might not work with you, but bringing up objections to a theory and then showing why they are invalid is a more or less standard, *scientific* way of advancing one's argument.

What a fucking cunt

Oh, I see now I was so wrong! Your cogent arguments have so completely persuaded me!


Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:16:00 UTC | #456621

Go to: Fulton, Mississippi: Skeeviest town in America

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by pyjamaslug

Cut the young people some slack. they are not necessarily bigoted or homophobic; they almost certainly feel sympathy for Constance McMillan, they simply are not equipped to deal with the tsunami which has hit them as a result of this young woman's assertion of her right to free association. The blame and shame lies with their parents, not with them.

I fully sympathise with their wish to have a prom which matches their expectations. They are still wearing the training wheels of life, not expecting their parents harsher realities to intrude. I don't blame them for accepting the offer of a 'problem free' prom, although I can't imagine many of them will have done so free from a nagging sense of guilt. Young adults can be like that: thoughtful and empathetic.

Unlike some commenters here.


Wed, 07 Apr 2010 06:49:00 UTC | #456612

Go to: Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by pyjamaslug


Oh, sure: I can see you standing front of a class of twelve year olds with that line! It's pretty obvious you have never tried to teach anybody anything.


Wed, 07 Apr 2010 06:20:00 UTC | #456610

Go to: Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by pyjamaslug


Yes, and here are Richard Dawkin's comments on that affair at the time:

The Reverend Michael Reiss, the Royal Society's Director of Education, is in trouble because of his views on the teaching of creationism.

Although I disagree with him, what he actually said at the British Association is not obviously silly like creationism itself, nor is it a self-evidently inappropriate stance for the Royal Society to take.

Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who 'respect' creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity.

The accommodationists include such godless luminaries as Eugenie Scott, whose National Center for Science Education is doing splendid work in fighting the creationist wingnuts in America. She and her fellow accommodationists bend over backwards to woo the relatively sensible minority among Christians, who accept evolution.

Get the bishops and theologians on the side of science " so the argument runs " and they'll be valuable allies against the naive creationists (who probably include the majority of Christians and certainly almost all Muslims, by the way).

No politician could deny at least the superficial plausibility of this expedient, although it is disappointing how ineffective as allies the 'sensible' minority of Christians turn out to be.

The official line of the US National Academy, the American equivalent of the Royal Society, is shamelessly accommodationist. They repeatedly plug the mantra that there is 'no conflict' between evolution and religion. Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn't deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.

Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prize-winning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste.

Nevertheless "it's regrettable but true" the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he!"

If the Royal Society wanted to attack creationism with all fists flying, as I would hope, an ordained priest might make a politically effective spokesman, however much we might deplore his inconsistency.

This is the role that Kenneth Miller, not a priest but a devout Christian, plays in America, where he is arguably creationism's most formidable critic. But if the Society really wants to promote the accommodationist line, a clergyman is the very last advocate they should choose.

Perhaps I was a little uncharitable to liken the appointment of a vicar as the Royal Society's Education Director to a Monty Python sketch. Nevertheless, thoughts of Trojan Horses are now disturbing many Fellows, already concerned as they are by the signals the Society recently sent out through its flirtation with the infamous Templeton Foundation.

Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty. I'd rather not play that kind of politics at all but, if the Royal Society is going to go down that devious road, they should at least be shrewd about it. Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?

Hardly a thoroughgoing condemnation. He is basically saying that Riess's position is OK but because he is a priest, it might be misunderstood; therefore he should resign. That's just bullshit, and unworthy of any serious consideration. It;s very disappointing to see Richard employing the antithesis of the argument from authority.

Riess is right to restate his position, because it is a reasonable and practical stance from which science educators can ply their trade. The royal society has always acknowledged this, now it is simply up to the peanut gallery to catch up.


Wed, 07 Apr 2010 06:13:00 UTC | #456607

Go to: Fulton, Mississippi: Skeeviest town in America

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by pyjamaslug

A quick googling reveals that Bill Bryson is a humorous novelist with a snake phobia.

I can see how a groin groping snake might excite some of his more primal fears (although investigation of the 'eastern' aspect might be rewarding)

So I tend to the fiction hypothesis.


Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:23:00 UTC | #456587

Go to: How can you derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by pyjamaslug

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:02:00 UTC | #456585

Go to: Fulton, Mississippi: Skeeviest town in America

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by pyjamaslug

Think I'll move to Austrailia! Gotta watch out for the Eastern Groin Gropers though.

Back in my home town, it was the Whitley Bay Muff Divers Association we had to watch out for!

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 03:51:00 UTC | #456583

Go to: Fulton, Mississippi: Skeeviest town in America

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by pyjamaslug

Something needs to be done to burn out this culture of exclusion and hatred from the dark places in the world, and it needs to start with the younger generation.

Agreed, and while it might not seem so from this episode, it is being burned out, and the younger generation (bless their cotton socks) are doing it, much more so in America than in the UK.

Now, granted, I live in California but San Diego is a perfect place to observe the fault lines in American society, lying as it does in a sort of mosh pit of all the different social currents.

We have the largest concentration of Mormons outside of Utah, a large and very active gay community, the usual Socal narcissists and huge numbers of Kansas/Louisiana expats courtesy of the naval and marine bases here. An interesting mix indeed when added to the (self appointed) native californians (brown people don't count).

So in my town of Poway, we have fundamentalist parents sending their children to school wearing provocatively messaged teeshirts aimed at gay pupils, resulting in a huge backlash from the vast majority of the rest of the student body. They have certainly absorbed and understood the inclusionary message which is a standard feature of the school system here, to the extent that they have exceeded their parents' capacity to support it. A wonderful result, and one which lends us all hope for the future.


Wed, 07 Apr 2010 03:23:00 UTC | #456578

Go to: Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by pyjamaslug

It's a tad hard to post here while avoiding the jerking knees; more peanuts, anyone?

Read this:

When teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have in order to shape and provoke a genuine discussion. The word "genuine" doesn't mean that creationism and intelligent design deserve equal time with evolution. They don't. However, in certain classes, depending on the teacher's comfort with talking about such issues, his or her ability to deal with them, and the make-up of the student body, it can and should be appropriate to address them.

So you can see that Prof. Reiss is hardly advocating that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory, simply arguing that it can and in certain contexts should, be dealt with as an invalid counter argument to evolutionary theory. This is perfectly sensible and almost certainly necessary in a world where children have been taught the creation myth since birth, but are exposed to biology only from the age of about 12 (in England, at any rate).

There are people here who are having a fit of the screaming abdabs at the possibility that science teachers might have to dispose of a contrary argument (easily done, I might add).

The annoying thing is that the very same people mock religites who try the same trick by saying their faith can't amount to much if it can't withstand a simple counter argument.

A little introspection required here, I think.


Wed, 07 Apr 2010 03:06:00 UTC | #456575

Go to: Pope's preacher compares abuse row to anti-Semitism

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by pyjamaslug


Is he really called 'Sing the mass'?

as someone said: you couldn't make this stuff up!

Sat, 03 Apr 2010 04:04:00 UTC | #455446

Go to: Free Expression Cartoon Contest Winners Announced

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by pyjamaslug


The face in the second place winner has a spooky resemblance to Quentin Tarantino!

Is something significant happening? Could the mystic link between Pulp Fiction and Inglourous Basterds have some deeper meaning?


Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:44:00 UTC | #454660

Go to: Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by pyjamaslug

Sir/Madam, I think not.

We Nudibranchs are, in fact, hermaphroditic.

I forgive you nothing, especially not if you take the church's own figures for membership as gospel.
Let's not forget that they count every person in any country which identifies itself politically (remember that: politically) as catholic. So every Spaniard, or Irish or Pole, or Italian is a catholic? Sure.

But of course one could be wrong.


You are ignoring the central point. As the western ideal of individual human self determination has spread from the ruling classes to the masses, so the influence and authority of the church has diminished.

In its pomp of the late middle ages, the church was the ruling class, it had authority over every aspect of European life; a Knight Templar in every court.
Are you seriously arguing that it has that authority now? Or that it has not lost anything after its craven endorsement of the European fascism of the 20th century? You criticised another poster for knowing no history, but I get the sense yours was a hollow bluff.

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:57:00 UTC | #453591

Go to: Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by pyjamaslug

Sir, I surmise you are not a student of history.

Well; I am.

You seem to have missed a rather significant shift which began with the reformation, when the catholic church lost its absolute authority, and has continued to this day.

At one time, the church was Europe, and Europe was the church. After the barbarian hordes had been converted to christianity (not civilised, you understand, merely brought under the sway of the holy see) the vicar of Rome exercised ultimate authority over all matters, temporal and spiritual.

The monarchical absolutism ended with Martin Luther, was further damaged by the English tudors and suffered its most serious defeat when Napoleon Buonaparte took the imperial crown from the hands of whichever papal flunky had been assigned to the task of coronation, and crowned himself emperor (of Rome, no less).

I like to think he had Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine in mind when he did that, but in fact it was probably simple hubris.

You could say, like Hitchens, that the fascist regimes of the 20th century were the last gasp of the political wing of the catholic church. If you remember, they were roundly and soundly defeated.

The historical trajectory is rather obvious, so I won't labour the point. I'm sure you can see that the 'survival' of the church has, in recent times and increasingly, involved a diminution of its being. This will continue into extinction, it's only a matter of time.

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:46:00 UTC | #453567

Go to: Arrogant, corrupt, secretive – the Catholic church failed to tackle evil

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by pyjamaslug

My comment is gone, I know why, you dont.

The tone of your comment is confidence. I can smell it. You have satisfied your belief in your habit of correctness to yourself, and maybe to others, many times. Although I also hear a lack of updated idea development.

More importantly, when you say out loud that you regard O'Tooles first paragraph of attention getting rhetoric as truth, and you say that sex is ...the expression of physical love, and you do not include ...given to us as a gift from god, anything else written by you on the subjects of sex, love, or power, is best and hereby discarded for the sake of the children.

When O'Toole says The catholic church is finally losing its rearguard action, I will not ask you what he means.

It is clear to me that I have much to hear. And, apart from three subjects, you may have much to say.


I would reply to this but I have to confess, you have completely defeated me: I can't make head or tail of it.


Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:39:00 UTC | #451301

Go to: Arrogant, corrupt, secretive – the Catholic church failed to tackle evil

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by pyjamaslug

As a matter of fact, Lendear, I regard that as as perceptive and pertinent statement. This incidence of child rape has nothing to with either sex (the expression of physical love) or catholicism. It is an unintended outgrowth of a corrupt system combined with an unhealthy attitude toward sex.

Child rape occurs in many situations; it is generally (as all rape) an assertion of power over a subordinate. Outside of a natural family, which has its own checks and balances, giving adults absolute power over children is fraught with danger, for both adults and children. (It's just that the children stand to be more profoundly damaged by the encounter.)

The special nature of child rape within the church is not that it occurred, but that its occurrence within the context of the church's own self image as the sole embodiment of the perfection of christ on earth led it to an institutional mistake of gargantuan proportions.

This mistake should not be minimised or glossed over. Those responsible should be brought to book, and not their book, but ours: the criminal law of whichever jurisdiction holds sway. However, I would not go so far as to say that all priests or all catholics are equally culpable (although the American variety try my patience!).

I have argued elsewhere that the generality of catholic priests are not monsters, and that their management (they would say, church hierarchy) are not individually evil. It is the confluence of their perception of righteousness combined with the ability to exercise unrestrained power which produced the outcome we see today.

The target of our anger should be precise: those clergy (and laity) who abused, or tortured, or raped, plus those who implicitly condoned by concealment should be tried, sentenced and imprisoned under secular law without favour on account of their religious character.

Those who are not so implicated should be given their due rights as innocents: we can engage them on the grounds of their irrational beliefs at a different time, on a different ground, to better effect.

In case we should become too complacent, take a look at the Stanford experiments for a reminder of how fragile our grasp on human empathy really is.

Now let's try to deal with your overt homophobia: homosexuals are no more predators than anyone else. In fact, 'homosexuality' has precisely as much to do with fucking as does 'heterosexuality'; it is only through the obsession of homophobes that we are even reminded of physical sex in this context.

Your outrage does you credit: harness it to the power of your intellect and you will have a team of great power.


Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:02:00 UTC | #451031

Go to: Atheism as extremism

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 67 by pyjamaslug

You know, I think Jacobson has a point: one should always strive to believe and not believe since to veer too far towards the mundane is to lose sight of the divine; to immerse oneself in the drabness of what can be sensed is to remove oneself from the shining infinite possibilities of what cannot be sensed.

In a very real sense, then, one must avoid giving undue weight to the empiricism which urges that the demands of the physical world be promoted above the aspirations which cause us to transcend materiality, bringing undue attention to the here and now, and place our focus upon what could be, rather than what is.

I put this into practice one time during a bout of gastroenteritis;

I got through an awful lot of underwear.

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:38:00 UTC | #435744

Go to: How Did You Lose Your Religion?

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by pyjamaslug

I'm feeling ratty, so I'll carp.

He didn't say 'Mom'; he said "Mum".

A small point but the minutiae of cultural imperialism are always small, aren't they?

I might be in a more forgiving mood tomorrow.


PS: If anyone accuses me of inappropriate behaviour with Ratty, I'll laugh!

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:34:00 UTC | #432942

Go to: Surprising Sea Slug Is Half-plant, Half-animal

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by pyjamaslug

Arrggh! I wish I could find the paper on a non-subscription site!

It's well known that the 'sap-sucking' nudis eat algae and store the plastids which then synthesise sugars from sunlight. It's a sort of symbiosis.

What this seems to say is that this particular nudi incorporates genetic material from its food (algae) into its own dna which it then passes on to its offspring.

That is a very different thing and I am afraid it is a stretch, and I would like to understand the mechanism by which that might happen. The article must be badly written because I can't believe that the extremely well-respected scientist mentioned would propose such a thing.


Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:05:00 UTC | #431852

Go to: There's an app for that

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by pyjamaslug

This app is great! 99 cents well spent.

For all the people who 'prefer to refute creationists with what's in their own heads':

Please stop monkey spanking and own up to the fact that even you had to learn something, and that even the most competent experts need to consult their notes from time to time.


Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:15:00 UTC | #431846

Go to: Chuck Norris: Mary Might Have Aborted Jesus Christ Under ObamaCare/'Herodcare'

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 78 by pyjamaslug

Err, if Mary aborted Jesus, wouldn't she just be pregnant again three days later?

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:26:00 UTC | #425786

Go to: Canadian Panel to Study Euthanasia Stacked with Pro-Euthanasia Academics

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by pyjamaslug

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are, whatever the moral questions, tough things to get right in a legal and practical context. For one thing, how do you ensure that the wishes of suffering relatives are not projected onto the protagonist?

The screaming and shouting of the fundamentalists, which contributes little to the moral debate, and less to the practical, is not really helpful. There are a host of important questions to sort out before we can let the essentially brain dead processes of the law loose on such a subtle and personal issue but I fear that the clowns' chorus will drown out the discussion.

Moral absolutism really is a strong deterrent to rational thinking.

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:28:00 UTC | #425274

Go to: An insider's look at the feather, a marvel of bioengineering

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by pyjamaslug

[Quote="Rawhard Dickins"] (Interesting how design often looks to nature for inspiration and now uses evolution to design wings etc. )[/Quote]

The first part of your point is true but I have to correct the second. Engineers do not use evolution to design anything (the linguistic tension between the two words alone should alert you to that).

Lots of design techniques use stochastic processes to generate possibilities which are then examined to see if they have potential usefulness for the task in hand. If the result of a particular iteration is seen to advance the design towards the objective, it is retained; if not, it is discarded.

Quite a bit of research has been done where these processes are allowed to proceed without guidance until a certain functionality has been arrived at. The problem is always that, without an understanding of each step, the final result is not well enough understood to be usable or maintainable.

I don't think I need to elaborate further to demonstrate why 'evolution' is an inaccurate way of describing any design process, even those that have an element of randomness.


Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:30:00 UTC | #423963

Go to: Believers in denial

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by pyjamaslug

Bristlecone pines live 5,000 years or more - but perhaps you just dropped a zero. In any case, I doubt that many climatologists are bold enough to chop down a tree that old to examine the rings!

Funnily enough, I was chatting to a couple of blokes up at the bristlecone forest, who were there to take cores for that very purpose. As it happens, they don't really need to cut a tree down, just take a very fine core. While they are not exactly gung-ho about drilling into them, they seem pretty happy to take a limited number of cores. They were completely unwilling to reveal to me the whereabouts of the oldest tree, however.

Their technique for extending the ring history beyond the oldest living tree is interesting: there are a number of dead specimens lying around in a very good state of preservation from which they can take cores and, by lining up the pattern of ring thicknesses, can extend the history of these trees back to seven thousand years or more.

So not only are there trees aged 5000 years, there are dead trees which have lain undisturbed and undecayed for further thousands of years; amazing!

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:53:00 UTC | #422708

Go to: Believers in denial

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by pyjamaslug

Well, since jonjermey did a cut and paste job of the post he left at the WP, I will respond in kind with a cut and paste of my reply:

"Unfortunately the very first sentence of the article is simply wrong. The two sites...."

Chery picking data does not make your case, I am afraid. Your argument is like Canute asserting that the tide is not coming in because; oh, look! the water just went back out again, oh! it's come in again....oh! it's going out again!

What matters is the long term trend, which can be found in convenient form on the very same website in a place where you must have had to close your eyes to avoid seeing it as you clicked through on your cherry-picking expedition.

see how the individual years show an up and down variation? All while the long term trend shows the ice "melting before our very eyes..."

Now, since you see fit to challenge Paula Kirby's credentials, how about telling us why you are qualified to contradict the consensus of the world's most eminent scientists?

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:35:00 UTC | #422707

Go to: Bah, Hanukkah

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by pyjamaslug

But then it is not actually important (even to us, except in retrospect) that we as individuals exist.

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:28:00 UTC | #422441

Go to: Bah, Hanukkah

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by pyjamaslug

I have to think Hitchens is taking the piss when he writes something like this; not the history, but the over-literal take on the folk sayings. Just try the same riff with "there's no sense crying over spilt milk" and you will see what I mean.

Perhaps he is just subtly highlighting the absurdity of the extreme literalists of religiosity (they aren't the only valid targets, of course).

Anyway, it's always nice to see him give the lie to the constant refrain that secularists are afraid to poke a finger in the eye of any faith but christianity.


Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:12:00 UTC | #422438

Go to: Iraqis Shocked as Atheism Creeps

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by pyjamaslug

Nice one, sonic.

For the rest of you:

What are you all talking about? The Alexa link shows Iraq with the *fewest* hits on!
Apart from which, it is a completely partial record of users of the Alexa toolbar; how many people here use the Alexa toolbar? silence .... I thought so.

Good grief!

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:06:00 UTC | #405235

Go to: Christopher Hitchens on Drive

pyjamaslug's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by pyjamaslug

No, Sally, I don't agree. I share your distaste for the way Hitchens discomfits his interviewers but I can't condemn him for it.
The radio host has a very pleasant manner, which adds to the feeling that perhaps Hitchens is being rude but he was responding, appropriately I thought, to what seems to be a standard tactic of slipping in some outrageous assertion disguised as a segue into the next point.
Hitchens never lets them get away with that, for which we should be grateful.

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:17:00 UTC | #403501