by the New York Dolls. Via BoingBoing.
From the ever-reliable News of the Weird comes news that, upon reflection, makes perfect sense, even if nothing IN this story does. Of course it’s from Texas:
The Texas insanity-defense law requires that a delusional person acting under “orders” from God be judged not guilty by reason of insanity, but that a delusional person acting under “orders” from Satan be considered sane, according to prominent forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz (according to a June USA Today story). Thus, Dietz believed that Andrea Yates (at press time being retried in Houston) knew that drowning her kids upon command of someone “without moral authority” (such as Satan) was wrong and thus that she did not qualify for insanity-law protection. Dietz later concluded the opposite in another Texas child-killing case because God had supposedly assured that mother that her kids would be better off dead. [USA Today, 6-20-06]
It’s interesting what you can find just clicking randomly around YouTube. This little gem has fewer than five hundred views, which is a damn shame to anyone who likes a nice evisceration of complacent tyrants of a Sunday morning.
The Smackdown in Utah, or as The Ironic Priesthood has 
titled it, A couple of weeks of civil bloggernacle discourse.
Here are some snippets, but for true theological scholars, nothing but the original text will suffice, of course. Pity it’s not written in Moroni‘s language.
John W. Redelfs wrote: How dare you malign Midgley? Don’t you understand that he is seeking to restore faith in the Lord’s one true church? What are you, apostate or, even worse, a Sunstone subscriber? I’m telling!
…
Louis Midgley wrote: You are right, Roasted. I messed up with some of the Pry stuff. Also, I think that you display an unfortunate credulity when addressing Palmer’s Pry explanation. More importantly, you are obviously an apostate.
SerenityValley wrote: Hey, I know apostates, I’ve worked with apostates, and my husband, sir, is no apostate.
Daniel Peterson wrote: Hi, I’m the Zodiac Killer. Why won’t people ever listen to my arguments, instead always focusing on the blood on my hands? WWWWHHHHHYYYY?
…
Clark Goble wrote: I think maybe we’re painting with too broad a brush. Ad Hominem isn’t always inappropriate. Humor and Satire can also be appropriate. That said, both can be abused. What do you think we could do to make sure our discourse is uplifting?
DKL wrote: You suck!
…
John Fowles wrote: Are you all mad? Don’t you know that Nibley entered this life fully formed, emerging from a blooming lotus blossom on a still pool? Don’t you know John Gee descended to earth directly from heaven? Don’t you know that Richard Anderson didn’t die, but rather rode a chariot of fire into the sky? that Jack Welch is my father-in-law? that Daniel Peterson is Bel-Shamharoth, the Soul Eater? (Seriously, don’t cross that guy) They would never, ever, ever, ever, eva, sink to the level of anti-Mormons in terms of writing hateful prose and snarky asides, nuh uh. Matt Elggren, apologetics isn’t what you say it is.
Word!
Forget the Narnia Raps. Reverend Alecia here is the one true Internet insanity. Judging by the effects, the fact that rotating computer chairs were available, and that the Tootie hairstyle was still au courant, I’m pegging this at about 1983, and off the crazy scale.
Give Thanks! that you’re not as whack as Reverend Alecia
From Perez Hilton, who knows a crazy, chairdancin’ bitch when he sees one.
raincoaster 