Hate Mail

"Dr. Botanus"

[Editor's note: Don't you just love these clowns who hide behind anonymous web mail accounts and silly fake names? This particular coward currently hides behind drbotanus@hotmail.com, but of course, he could move at any time.

Most of his messages are consumed with bizarre rantings about the way he imagines me to behave in real life, and complaints about the fact that my other website is a fanciful science fiction website. He is an inveterate flamer, so I eventually start treating him as such ("turning the other cheek" being an idea which I don't subscribe to). He wrote his message immediately after I posted my article on atheist morality, and he took offense at the idea that I could find fault with the Bible, or with the behaviour and/or morals of fundamentalists]

March 5, 2001:

DrBotanus of course finds it rather odd to see such a normally well balanced person going off the deep end about of all things organized religion. This Office believes that such a display of atheistic drumbeating only makes shows that Wong has 'Jumped the Shark' once getting away from the world of StarWars Techie babble.

I see you are quite fond of your strawman.

Blaming organized religion for all the world's ills is the same as blaming Engineers for the Holocaust or for the Banana Splits.

Still in love with your strawman, eh? I don't blame all organized religion for all the world's ill. However, I do blame Christian fundamentalism for the evils which it has directly caused, and for the evils which its proponents are still attempting to cause today.

The Good DrB while aware that anyone given to arguing about the finer points of a fictional universe to the Nth degree with Trekkies does have things all out of perspective-was not quite prepared for the fusillade of complete and total idiocy.

Obviously not. If you were prepared, you would have had an actual rebuttal instead of these strawman fallacies, unsupported denials, and insults which are clearly indicative of an angered, defensive, but intellectually overwhelmed mind.

Knowing your limits is half the battle. Approaching organized religion with such obvious contempt for the subject and narrow mindedness only brings about more foam at the mouth of both yourself and your foes and blinds your perspective.

Yeah, whatever. And the first logical point in your rebuttal is ... ?  Ah, I see. It is not forthcoming. Can't say I'm surprised.


March 6, 2001 (this one was so weird I didn't bother responding):

Emperor Guillotine has read the psuedo-religious tract which was scrawled in the Wong Canadian Atheist Forum AKA Religious Bigotry. He has directed I, DrBotanus, to call your attention to varied and sundry fallacies, idiotic assertions and other claptrap which some misbegotten David Hume-Trekkie has spat out on your site.

[Editor's note: this is a recurring theme in his messages. He rants and raves about how my arguments are full of crap and hate but he doesn't provide a single example of an error I've made or a hateful sentiment I've expressed. All he knows is that I'm negative about the Bible and about fundamentalists who think we should govern our society by its horrifying values, so he concludes that I must hate all believers of all religions]

To wit-hackneyed, knee-jerk drivel masquerading as commentary on Organized Religion. Parroted by the likes of Sagan, Marx, Lenin and Gene Roddenberry. Not by Lincoln, Jefferson or John Elway. Used as a smear campaign by frustrated choir boy who spent most of adult life trying to foist beliefs on everyone else but was forced into a life of seclusion scribbling down poorly constructed physical/engineering arguments over fictional universe made by George Lucas with little plastic models, blue screen process and CGI later on. Was forced at 11 to let bigger kids use tinker toys. Was forced at 12 to stop watching 'New Adventures of Pinnochio' when it was learned Rankin-Bass plotlines better than Lucas'. Was forced to keep watching 'Beachcombers' til Relic was etched on brainstem for life.

[Editor's note: does he think he's accomplishing something with this vast stream of personal insults and bizarre delusions about my personal life?]

Wong later wound up on wong side of religious issue by mass intoxifications of Neitzsche, David Hume and Gloria Steinam ravings. Learned delivery of one-sided, pin-headed full-bore 'debating' style from watching 'Friendly Giant' Outtakes. Has large 'Banana Splits' fetish and is Sure that Fleegle's guitar contains light sabre predecessor. Is still working on Treknobabble explanation of why.

[Editor's note: notice how he assumes that I must be following atheist authorities, rather than thinking for myself. This is a very good example of the creationist mindset, since they are accustomed to mindlessly following authorities (even long-dead ones, such as the authors of the Bible), and they automatically assume that everyone else does the same thing]

Emperor Guillotine henchman CoolCat noticed while jumping beneath '57 Chevy rather large stash of Wong religious hate writings, covered up beneath 'My pal Barney' and 'Why Mark Hamill' scrawlings. Found earlier versions of diatribe in crackerjack box below character with eye patch. CoolCat currently bringing said stash of evidence to Emperor G's trident shaking room.

[Editor's note: All of this ranting does make you wonder what this person is like in real life, doesn't it?]

DrBotanus of course found such a one-sided smear campaign vs religion to be the same kind of ravings used by Hitler against Judaism, blaming a certain creed/race/belief for all the evils of history. It is of course the same as blaming engineering for warfare, gas, bio-warfare, and bad Trekkie sites such as this.

[Editor's note: notice how he completely ignores the rebuttal I sent to the previous message, in which I pointed out that this was a strawman attack]

DrBotanus believes such writers as JAT Robinson, Paul Maier and CS Lewis would be good for Wong to read, but as there isn't anything in there mentioning 'hyperspace', 'the Force' or 'nanopositronic rays', it will perhaps be of little interest.

The Good DrB will enjoy finding more angry diatribes beneath the tree from Wong, but will forward them to Herr Holzmann when the time is right. This office will be in stasis til the Optikus is beaten-long live Emperor Guillotine-Gargoyle Salute!!

(sounds of laughter etched upon the minds all whom dwell below...)

[Editor's note: okay ... am I the only one who's starting to wonder if this guy is writing from an asylum?]


March 13, 2001:

Repeat after the Good DrB:
Star Wars is Just a film.
It does Not exist.

Repeat after me:
The Bible is just a book.
It does not exist.

Tie Fighters are little plastic models or CGI images.
Star Trek doesn't exist.
The Enterprise is just a little plastic model or CGI image.

The Ten Commandments are just words on paper. They don't exist.

No one ever blew up a Death Star.

No one ever flooded the Earth.

No one ever came up with the Genesis Project.

No one ever created the Earth in six days.

[Editor's note: the key difference here is that I realize Star Wars is fictional, while he apparently does not realize that the Book of Genesis is also fictional. In both cases, you will tend to take away whatever you are inclined to take away from the experience, and the material itself only provides a set of boundaries. Unfortunately, in the case of the Old Testaments, those boundaries are far beyond the limits of ethical behaviour]

You are wasting an UnGodly amount of time worrying about/debating air castle fights, postulating pseudo-Hawkings babble with TrekaZoids over which fictional Universe has the better technology, weapons, etc. Am afraid to tell you this is exactly the same thing as arguing who would win, Superman or the Hulk.

You are wasting an ungodly amount of time trying to push your religion onto people who have no inclination to believe it, and you are subscribing to bigoted right-wing Christian fundamentalist dogma about the superiority of your belief system to all others.

[Editor's note: By now, I had decided that due to his strong reaction to my criticism of Biblical fundamentalism (not to mention his assumption that an attack on Biblical fundamentalism represents hatred of all religion), he must be a fundamentalist himself. This is not absolutely guaranteed of course, but anyone running around under such bizarre fake names is obviously not going to voluntarily reveal anything about himself, so I had little choice but to infer this from his messages]

This is not something for a grown man with any sense of mature sensibilities to be spending so much time on.

Your attempt to convince me of the superiority of your religious beliefs is not something for a grown man with any sense of mature sensibilities to be spending so much time on. You have your beliefs, and you can keep them, but you can't push them on anyone else against their will.

This does mean you are essentially as bad off as any Trekkie, over obsessed with trivialities which blow the mind.

This means that you are worse than any Trekkie, because most Trekkies,at least, are not likely to insist that Christian religious bigotry is acceptable.

DrBotanus councils-get a life?

I counsel: get a brain?

Also-repeat after DrB:
Religion is not the Enemy.

No, but right-wing Christian fundamentalism certainly is. It is the modern incarnation of the mentality which has caused tens of millions of senseless deaths throughout history. You completely missed the point of that essay, which was that Christian fundamentalists have no right whatsoever to assume moral superiority to any other belief system, whether that be Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, or even their own Christian moderate peers. When I attack right-wing Christian fundamentalists, you assume that this constitutes an attack upon all religion because you think Christian fundamentalism is all religion. That is bigotry. That is you.

Wong doesn't know better than everyone else simply because they are religious.

I do know better than you, because you are ignorant and because you are clearly incapable of debating points instead of hurling insults. Even as a mud-slinger, your technique is poor; "dork" is the sort of insult used by people who are angry but who can't think of something more creative to say.

Wong doesn't have any answers.

I don't pretend to offer easy answers. Easy answers are for people who lack the ability to think for themselves. I offer information and arguments, which you can analyze and either agree or disagree with, provided you have the intellectal capacity to do so. In your case, I am apparently throwing pearls before swine.

Wong is a Dork.

Dr. Botanus is a mindless bigot.

DrBotanus will happily take the Gospels or Koran over screen editing comments by John Dykstra or George Lucas any day. DrBotanus also finds the hypocrisy in Wong's dorkomatic replies to be amazingly short sighted, inbred and self serving.

Yet you cannot find a single logical flaw in them, hence your reliance on insults. This says a lot about the limits of your intellect.

The site is a Sci-fi dork Circle jerk. If you wanted to put one such thing together, you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

Apart from some serious complaints about religious bigotry and pseudoscience, the [Star Wars] site is meant for fun. Obviously, you don't get it. Not surprising, given your apparently shrunken brain.

Have a nice day.
Remember to rewind and shut off the Ewoks cartoon before bed.

There are other things I like to do before going to sleep. Maybe someday when you graduate from blow-up dolls to real women, you'll understand what I mean.

Parking in the rear for those so inclined.

I see that I should have said "from blow-up dolls to real men", not "real women". Sorry about the mistake.

[Editor's note: I should point out here that there's nothing wrong with being homosexual, and I have made my views on this matter very clear in other places, particularly my online discussion forums. However, I also know that a fundie like Mr. "Botanus" will take any accusation of homosexuality as the most grave possible insult, so I couldn't help but use it. I hope none of my gay readers take it the wrong way.]


March 16, 2001:

DrBotanus of course sees 'From Wong', hits Delete and replies.

In other words, you are mentally incapable of answering my arguments, so you would rather not face them. Quite understandable; you've spent a lifetime being indoctrinated to blindly accept authority, and you are obviously rather intimidated by people who are actually capable of thinking for themselves.

Frequent regurgitation of fanatical anti-religionist party line is a sign of a weak Mind. Where did it go Wong? After this break, more....

There you go again, assuming that your right-wing Christian fundamentalist cult is representative of all religion, so any criticism of your narrow mindset must represent the "fanatical anti-religionist party line". Maybe I could complete your preconceived impression by flying a black helicopter, pledging allegiance to the AntiChrist, and working for the world Jewish banking conspiracy, eh?

You ever notice how someone who has too much time on their hands winds up obsessing about TV? Putting together a site like this would be very much the same as, oh, DrB hazards a guess---MASH vs. Hogan's Heroes.

And that would probably be a fun site to visit. Too bad "fun" isn't in your vocabulary. Like most hardcore fundamentalist fanatics, you are consumed by the fear that somewhere out there, someone might actually be having a good time.

'John Banner's version of Schulz was So much Better than Larry Linville's Frank Burns!

'Charles Winchester was so much better than Bob Crane!'
'My phaser is bigger than your blaster!'

Dork city. PLEASE-you and Harry Knowles must be on a first name basis, right there in the Mouth breathing section.

At least some of those arguments can be amusing if done for fun, and enlightening if used to explain physical sciences. Your religious fanaticism, on the other hand, neither amuses or enlightens.

As an aside, this is a classic example of creationist thinking: repeat the same lame argument over and over and over, as if repetition will make it stronger. The "get a life" argument is tired and worn, particularly when it's obviously the only argument you have, and you've already used it repeatedly.

"dAh Yeah George, I take Wong's opinions on religion real serious! He like knows how many gigahurtz it takes to run a StarDestroyer's garbage disposal! He Knows!"

Interesting strawman. You seem to think that I voiced "opinions on religion", when in reality, I voiced criticisms on right-wing fundamentalist bigotry. You also seemed to think that those criticisms were based entirely on an appeal to my authority, even though I supported each one (and you couldn't come up with rebuttals).

The really sad thing is that it's probably pointless to explain these things to you. It's doubtful you have the slightest idea what's wrong with an appeal to authority, or what's wrong with a strawman fallacy.

Can't wait to hear how Droopy could beat up Superman if you apply enough Ouzo to his cape.

If someone made a website with some funny cartoons of that matchup, I would probably visit, because it could be a lot of fun. I might even print out a couple of pictures to show my kids. But of course, unlike you, I don't believe in avoiding every activity that isn't sombre enough to satisfy your masochistic religious guilt syndrome.

Have a nice life guy.
Please obtain same at 7-11 near you.

Actually, I quite enjoy the life I have right now. Maybe if you had one of your own, you wouldn't have to run around attacking everyone else's.


April 6, 2001 (he had grown quite tiresome, so I didn't even bother responding to this one):

DrBotanus believes that you are what is called a fundamentalist Athiest, who probably pisses and moans that everyone else, or most of them with at least the IQ of a candied Kumquat, have some sort of spiritual life that the TrekaZoid Starwarznut like yourself has no conception of.

[Editor's note: Notice how he invents a whole new term: fundamentalist atheist! What exactly is a fundamentalist atheist? He doesn't bother explaining, does he? A Christian fundamentalist is one who thinks that every word of the Bible is absolutely, literally true, and who wants to return to "traditional" values (back before civil rights, feminism, freedom of speech and religion, etc). Since there is no atheist Bible, and no "traditional values" of atheism which have been diluted over the years, what would an atheist fundamentalist be? Instead of explaining this new term, he simply follows it up with his usual stream of bizarre insults.

Also notice how he thinks that since he's religious and I'm not, that he must have a "spiritual life" while I don't. This is a common fundamentalist assumption: that atheists must be dead inside, as if we aren't capable of feelings, or love, or hopes and dreams. This kind of thinking betrays an attempt to dehumanize atheists in his mind (that makes sense, since it's easier to hate people when you no longer think of them as people)]

This is sad. Being the lackey of the James Randis of the world means one thing-you kiss the ass of a sod who's claim to fame is antagonizing Uri Geller. O Creme the Office's collective pants. Did you hear about Randi's little run ins with the law in Toronto over his hitting on high school boys? Yeah that athiesm will do marvelous things for yer psyche there Spockboy.

[Editor's note: Notice how he commits the common fundamentalist mistake of projecting his own religious mindset onto atheists. The fundamentalist attitude is to worship authority, and he obviously can't figure out how I'm capable of functioning without some sort of authority of my own. Ergo, he assumes that I must have an authority, and he assumes that it's James Randi.

In reality, I don't know too much about James Randi except for the fact that he's a magician who uses his knowledge of magic tricks to show how psychics, spoon benders, and other self-proclaimed miracle workers deceive people. As for his claim about James Randi being accused of homosexual sex crimes in Toronto, I am somewhat skeptical. I happen to be in Toronto, and I've never heard anything about this. Furthermore, a quick web search on James Randi's legal difficulties turned up nothing except a slew of lawsuits from faith healers that he had publicly debunked (thus drying up their income stream). Is "Dr. Botanus" slandering James Randi, or did I simply miss the relevant article on my search? Either way, it's irrelevant because James Randi is a red herring. My site has nothing to do with his activities, and it does not appeal to his authority.

Also notice how he claims that atheism is damaging to one's psyche, and may even lead to sex crimes. His logic is bizarre: if (as he claims) a famous atheist molested high school boys, then he assumes the crime must have been caused by his religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I suppose it doesn't occur to him that if one applies this "logic" to the thousands of Catholic priests who have been found guilty of molesting little boys, it would lead to the conclusion that Christianity causes child sexual abuse!]

To really understand religion, you have to try and have a modicum of respect for the practicioners of same. There seems to be nothing but sheer contempt for everyone whom disagrees with you, simply because they have, in your mindset, a 'Wrong Opinion'.

[Editor's note: This is a good example of the generalist personal attack. He can't find anything wrong with any specific argument that I make anywhere on this website, so he resorts to empty, generalized attacks against what he perceives to be my personality and method. He claims that I have no respect for any religious people, but he provides no examples of where I have expressed such sentiments (he assumes that if I am contemptuous of ignorant and/or hateful fundamentalists, I must be contemptuous of all religious people).

He also claims that my contempt for the ignorant is caused by the fact that they disagree with me, rather than the fact that they are ignorant. That is no small distinction; there is nothing wrong with being contemptuous of people who are too lazy to perform the necessary research before spewing their uninformed ideas]

Such is the kind of thinking that makes one collect pools of drool amidst the book burnings of the Nazis back in the 30s and 40s. No thanks. Beavis was Not right this time, Censorship is NOT cool.

[Editor's note: Now it's time for him to wrap himself in the cloak of freedom of speech, as if the act of criticizing his beliefs somehow amounts to "censorship" and Nazi book-burning. This is another common fundamentalist trick: paint themselves as victims of oppression whenever someone dares criticize their position]

Heheheheheheheheh

Try to get a life and make other's less vile, okay? If you are shitting yer pants because the vast majority of yer cronies are religious while you sit and watch Empire Strikes Back Outtakes for the 566th time, perhaps you will realize why only you and Harry Knowles are the types who like that kinda thing. Please remember-Parking in the rear for those so inclined, hondas are extra.

[Editor's note: yeah, whatever. By the way, this is the second time he's mentioned Harry Knowles. I did a web search on "Harry Knowles" and it turns out that he runs the Ain't It Cool website. What this has to do with creationism or fundamentalist bigotry is anyone's guess]


Last updated: August 5, 2001


Continue to Jonathan Boyd

Jump to: