**Not greatly exaggerated, but I’m just sayin’, it’s not as though I went stumbling drunk through the halls while pissing myself.**

So, as is my habit, I’m posting this later than I really ought to, since I received Mr. Luskin’s kind reply days ago. Unfortunately, it turns out that I have a day job, writing assignments that actually pay, and this crazy thing I like to call a social life. All of which is to say, I’m never going to get better at posting things in any kind of a timely fashion, but I’ll always feel just the tiniest bit guilty about that.

Read Casey’s reply to my email, and after you do, you can read what I have to say about it!

Dear Tiana (and feel free to share this with Kate),

Greetings again.  Actually we’ve been following your posts with amusement over the past few weeks on both of your blogs.  Given that you were willing to lie about your ID views during your visit to Discovery (something you openly admit you did on your blog), I predicted it was only a matter of time before you’d lie publicly about the nature and content of our conversation.  It turns out my prediction was correct.

For example, in your latest post you claimed that I said regarding Judge Jones:

“I know! But he wasn’t a real christian, he was a country club christian! I even heard that he referred to his church as his wife’s church. So that explains that. A real christian wouldn’t have sided with the ACLU the way he did. It was sickening.”

In fact, this completely misrepresents the nature of our brief conversation and you have invented words and phrases I never used.

For example, I’ve never used the phrase “country club christian”–that’s not a term and I’ve never heard anyone use that phrase.  The term I used was “country club republican”–a common term that represents a person who is a fiscal conservative, but not a social conservative.  And my usage of the term “country club republican” had nothing to do with attacking anyone’s religious viewpoint but simply shows where they fall on the political spectrum (i.e. fiscally conservative, but not very socially conservative).  (And if you recall, I only made those comments to rebut’s Kate contention that Judge Jones was conservative because he was appointed by Bush 2.) Apparently you were so eager to misrepresent me that you unknowingly invented non-sensical terms to put into my mouth.

Additionally, I also never said in our conversation that Judge Jones “wasn’t a real christian,” nor did I ever insinuate or say he was not a christian period, nor did I call his views or actions “sickening.” Again, those claims are also inventions on your part.

There are other false claims in your posts about me (for example, I did not mention that I was an attorney out of some misplaced need to boast, but was simply answering your questions about my role at Discovery) but I won’t belabor these points further because I’d like to end this e-mail on a positive note:

Discovery probably gets anywhere from 1 to 3 sets of visitors per month that drop in and want to speak about ID. It’s usually my job to speak with them.  But I say the same things to everyone, whether they are pro-ID or anti-ID (yes, open ID-skeptics have come in before!).  Had you said “We’re ID skeptics” I would have said, “Awesome, that’s great.  How can I answer your questions and what materials would you like me to give you?”

In this regard, you should be aware that you’re not the first ones to think of the idea of feigning being pro-ID.  We’re always aware of the possibility and in nearly prior every incident–including your incident–I had my suspicions.  For example, while we stood near the bookshelf, Kate was staring at me with a weird, catatonic expression.  It was also quite odd that you had an insatiable desire for a tour of our photocopier.  But even after I had formed suspicions, I still said, “If you take the time to come all the way to Discovery, I figure the least we can do is spend a few minutes speaking and give you some free materials to take home with you.”  I really meant those words even though by that time I had strong suspicions that you might have had ulterior motives for coming in and weren’t being entirely truthful.

So that’s a bit about me: I’m someone who believes in treating people kindly regardless of whether they agree with me, and even after they have publicly stated falsehoods (or other nasty things) about me.  I’m certainly not perfect but that’s how I strive to live my life.

In this spirit, I want you to know that I forgive you for the lies, falsehoods (and other things, etc.) you have said about me on your blogs, and I sincerely and genuinely hope that you enjoy the materials we gave you.  I also want you to know that I harbor no ill-will towards you, I forgive you, and I wish you both the best in life.

Sincerely,

Casey

p.s. Also, I want to say thanks for the tip on the great restaurant – Taste of India – in the U. District, which my wife and thoroughly enjoyed! Again, please feel free to share this e-mail with Kate.

Alright. That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? That sounds like the sort of thing a nice, well mannered man who really, earnestly wishes that the truth could be gotten at in any situation would write, doesn’t it? Yes, it does. Too bad he’s full of shit.
Let’s go at this bit by bit, shall we? Casey jumps right into a lie, and a stupid one, at that.
Greetings again.  Actually we’ve been following your posts with amusement over the past few weeks on both of your blogs.
OK. Not possible, given that Kate hasn’t written a word about it, but cool. I’m glad you’re enjoying the posts on both of our blogs, especially the ones on hers, the ones that exist only in your special reality.

Next up:

I predicted it was only a matter of time before you’d lie publicly about the nature and content of our conversation.  It turns out my prediction was correct.

For example, in your latest post you claimed that I said regarding Judge Jones:

“I know! But he wasn’t a real christian, he was a country club christian! I even heard that he referred to his church as his wife’s church. So that explains that. A real christian wouldn’t have sided with the ACLU the way he did. It was sickening.”

In fact, this completely misrepresents the nature of our brief conversation and you have invented words and phrases I never used.

For example, I’ve never used the phrase “country club christian”–that’s not a term and I’ve never heard anyone use that phrase.  The term I used was “country club republican”–a common term that represents a person who is a fiscal conservative, but not a social conservative.  And my usage of the term “country club republican” had nothing to do with attacking anyone’s religious viewpoint but simply shows where they fall on the political spectrum (i.e. fiscally conservative, but not very socially conservative).  (And if you recall, I only made those comments to rebut’s Kate contention that Judge Jones was conservative because he was appointed by Bush 2.) Apparently you were so eager to misrepresent me that you unknowingly invented non-sensical terms to put into my mouth.

D’awww. That’s adorable! Casey claims that I unknowingly invented “non-sensical” (seriously, Casey? USE YOUR SPELL CHECK) terms to put into his mouth. Something I really like about that is that he seems to be implying that because something is nonsensical, he obviously wouldn’t have said it. If I have to tell you why that’s hilarious, stop reading now. Go away. The other thing that is fantastic about this is that he did say it. He said the man was a “country club christian” and that he wasn’t “a real christian” or a “good conservative”. I can’t prove these things, because it was a steeeeeeeeeeeep walk to go get a tape recorder from my desk at work, and we were rushing to get to the Discovery Institute while there were still people there. So, I can’t prove that he said it, but he certainly did. All I have is my word and Kate’s, and this one point: The things that I have lied about or misrepresented (my views on ID), I’ve admitted, loud and proud. When have you heard Mr. Luskin or any other ID proponent admitting to any of their acts of dishonesty?

Also, Casey claims he only commented on Judge Jones because Kate mentioned that he was appointed by Bush. Cool, except for the fact that Kate didn’t know that Jones was appointed by Bush until she read the email. She’s probably going to be embarrassed that I said that, but there you have it.

Also false:

Had you said “We’re ID skeptics” I would have said, “Awesome, that’s great.  How can I answer your questions and what materials would you like me to give you?”

Reeeeeeaaaaaaaaalllllly? Why then is it that we had to talk frantically at your door-box to try to gain entry, and only when we mentioned that Kate was visiting from Mississippi and was a teacher interested in teaching ID to her students did we magically find the door opened, with a smile?

It was also quite odd that you had an insatiable desire for a tour of our photocopier.

Well. I don’t even know what to say about that. I’m not surprised that you find yourself thinking about our insatiable desires, Mr. Luskin, but that you seem to have fetishized the photocopier to such a degree that you include it in your fantasy is a bit odd. In reality, we expressed no interest whatsoever in your photocopier, and the only time it came into play, during the visit or in any of the writings about the visit, is when Anika walked back over to it after you rescued us from her clutches. For which we remain grateful.

In this spirit, I want you to know that I forgive you for the lies, falsehoods (and other things, etc.) you have said about me on your blogs, and I sincerely and genuinely hope that you enjoy the materials we gave you.  I also want you to know that I harbor no ill-will towards you, I forgive you, and I wish you both the best in life.

That? Means SO MUCH to me. I just can’t even tell you how meaningful your forgiveness is. Here’s the deal, though, Mr. Luskin. I. Don’t. Forgive. You. You spend an amazing amount of energy, time and money trying to force your religious views (and that IS what they ARE, sir, no matter what you say, no matter how many times and ways you try to fast and double talk, soft shoe and shuffle around it) and ideas into our classrooms, into the young and impressionable minds of our students. I do not forgive you your methods or your ideals, I do not forgive that you are endlessly attempting to erode progress in science to further the goals of your religious organization. I do not forgive that, while you may genuinely believe that the earth was created by some skygod, whatever that may look like to you, you also know that you are telling untruths and perpetrating falsehoods to gain ground wherever you can. I do not forgive you these trespasses, sir, and I cannot see how any rational and thinking person would. Your religion has no place in our science classrooms, and I believe that you know that. I believe that you know it and you do these things with that full knowledge, and that is an unforgivable offense.

Now, the final bit, and to end on a funnier note:

p.s. Also, I want to say thanks for the tip on the great restaurant – Taste of India – in the U. District, which my wife and thoroughly enjoyed!

I recommended Cedars Restaurant, not Taste of India. I’ve never been to Taste of India, though I’m sure it’s nice.