Daniel asks:
I’m a long-time reader (only about three months, actually, but I’ve read the entire archive, including one Ann Coulter article I accidentally clicked on and was very confused by), first time writer, and I was moved to ask you a question after reading the absurd attack mail you recieved after the H&C interview. I didn’t see the interview myself, as we don’t get Fox News here in Canada (yet), but I can’t imagine you doing anything to warrant that kind of a response. You mentioned that you do recieve civil correspondence from conservatives that disagree with you, but rarely print them because they lack comic value. I was wondering what the rough split is between the reasonable and the insane. Of course, I’m also curious about just how a reasonable attack would look. Do they point our percieved flaws in your reasoning or facts, use irony (which, as the accusations of treason against you prove, can be misread in print) or do they just respectfully disagree and occasionally promise to pray for you?
Conservative hate mail runs about 10-to-1 in favor of the “fuck you, sperm drinker” genre. The other tenth typically wonder whether I really believe the things that I write (well, what do you think?), where I grew up or what happened to me to make me so bitter (I’m not), and yes, the random promise to pray for me (which I appreciate because hey, you never know). I’m sure right-wingers receive hate mail; I wonder how many threats of violence and sexual-orientation comments they receive from liberals compared to reasoned discourse. If you’re one of my many readers among the rightist blogosphere, please email me and let me know.
