Am I joking?

It’s disappointing that so many people DID vote for her, but encouraging that there weren’t far more. Think of it that way.

I really don’t get what you’re trying to say there.

Are you saying Phil shouldn’t mention this lady’s anti-Science pro-one denomination and ideology of religion election policy*? Are you really trying to tell the BA what he can & can’t post about ..coz he can direct you to a page here about that issue you know.

Anyhow lets break this down & see :

I think 1.2% should be the event horizon for getting chatty about them evil Christianists at Bad Astronomy.

Okay seems like you’re in an event horizon of your own here. Not sure I’ve heard that term “evil Christianists” here before – certainly not from the BA or many of the regulars.

Fundamentalist purveyors of nuttery woo and those that try to impose their own politico-religious dogmas (eg. Creationists) are, quite rightly, not given much exxaggerated respect here. Nor, I think, should they be. But I don’t see any particular singling out of Christianity, in fact a recent thread began by a joke attacking Islam. If extremist Christianity does gets more of a mention then I suggest its because its more directly pertinant and directly affecting and better known to most of the posters here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing above that percentage should be seen as trivial enough to report.

Er, did you mean below? That would make more sense. But sometimes a 0.001 % difference can make all the difference. For instance say if 0.0001% of your food intake is contaminated with the ebola virus or say if an 0.001 % chance of a nearby gamma ray blast supernova happens today.

Besides even if low probability or fringe events *are* trivial – or if they’re not – they can still be entertaining and or interesting to discuss and muse about which is what this blog is for, I think.

Everything below that should be reported so readers can have no doubt as the virtue and essential goodness of Phil.

Well some of don’t have any doubts as to Phil’s virtue or essential goodness anyway!

In both directions I could add…Personally, from all I’ve read incl. both Dr Plait’s books so far & his blog here & many of his other articles I’m pleased to say I have none that the BA is indeeda good and ethical person.

Others, sadly seem to come here with the opposite judgement based on, well you’d have to ask them really .. but I suspect not very much if any evidence.

Good work, Phil. Keep fighting the goodness fight.

Aha! *Now* you’re making sense & I second that line – if not perhaps quite in the sense I get the feeling Vanderleun was meaning it..

Of course I could be wrong.

——————————————

* Because you know when this woman talks of getting more religion into politics I don’t think she’s meaning adopting the ideas of Aztec sacrifices, Greek pantheon bacchanlian rites, Norse God ceremonies or even prayers to Allah, the Buddha or Shiva …

No, wait, that’s not it. Err…

Normally I wouldn’t respond to a troll but just what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

Good work, Phil. Keep fighting the goodness fight.

You can get one out of ten Americans to agree to gouge out their own eyes if you ask them properly.

How Oedipal. (what percentage of readers understand that reference as appropriate?)

J/P=?

I’m going to make a sticky note for my monitor that says, “For the latest updates on the politics of Tulsa Oklahoma be sure to check Bad Astronomy today.”

On the other hand, one out of ten Tulsans voted for her. Think on that.

Think on this: 18% of Americans (and 19% of Brits) think that the Sun revolves around the Earth, according to this Gallup Poll (July 1999).

Glad she’s gone. One less nutwagon in a political atmosphere thick with them is a marginal, but useful improvement.

The next question is, how many people who voted placed their mark against someone who had any religious slant on their policies?

JBS