Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Physician Makes House Call, Leaves Calling Card

An email arrived today from "khan27" bearing this greeting:

"full of the bile of satan you who call yourself a scholar"

I know nothing about Satan's physiology and thus cannot confirm khan27's diagnosis of my medical condition, but I would appreciate a second opinion. Are there any blogospheric experts on the old humoral theory of the four fluids who could confirm or reject this diagnosis? Am I suffering from "bile of satan"?

The message posted after this greeting prescribes the following medical treatment:

"there is no abrogation in the quran go to the site . . . were you will find the answers & there is no compulsion in religion you either believe the truth or you do not if you do not then that is a choice for you and your soul which will be made clear to you on the day of judgement."

I wish that doctors would write their prescriptions more carefully -- they're always so hard to read!

But no matter. I've not gone to this site to pick up my bitter medicine, for I don't feel ill and don't want to treat myself for a condition that I likely don't have.

Okay, enough humor (so to speak). This email came to me out of the blue. It may be a particularly unpleasant sort of spam, or it might be a rather hostile reaction to some remark that I've made somewhere about abrogation in the Qu'ran.

To khan27: If you are intent on rejecting the view that some Qu'ranic passages have been abrogated, then don't come to me. I didn't abrogate them. The principle of abrogation is one attested to in traditional Muslim texts. If you can conclusively show that the passage promising "no compulsion in religion" has not been abrogated, then more power to you. But since you greet me as "full of the bile of satan you who call yourself a scholar," then don't expect me to read anything on your website.

4 Comments:

At 4:52 PM, Blogger Dave in L.A. said...

I don't know anything about the bile of Satan, but you might try something I found online (somewhere). It will give you the good/evil breakdown of your site (mine's 31% evil). Methodology is explained (sort of). Worthless but fast, and they even provide some javascript so you can display your results for the khan27s of the world. Here's the link:
http://homokaasu.org/gematriculator/

 
At 7:40 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Thanks, Dave, I'll try to look into it. A second medical opinion is always desirable.

By the way, I didn't know that you have a site. What's your site's web address?

 
At 8:07 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Okay, I had my blog for March rated using the Gematriculator and received these results:

28 percent evil
72 percent good

This means that my blog is 3 percent less evil than Dave's.

Roughly, though, both our blogs are about 70 percent good and only about 30 percent evil.

But is that good enough? Maybe this much evil crosses the Van Inwagen line into too much evil. Perhaps 25 percent is too much evil.

How much dark Satanic bile is too much?

 
At 10:47 PM, Blogger Dave in L.A. said...

I wish I could remember the blog I found that thing on, but as a reference Roger Simon's is 33% evil, but you have to factor in that we both blog from Los Angeles. Otherwise, we'd surely be less evil.

My site in No Illusions: (http://www.illusionfree.com/weblog/)
I've actually been posting on the North Korea situation for a few months. This post has been getting a little circulation, and has links to the rest of the Korea series:
http://illusionfree.com/weblog/index.php/no_illusions/niperm/20050325_nk_uranium_denial/
I found your site linked at The Marmot's Hole doing some research on an earlier piece, and have been visiting since.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home