crichton and his baby-raping fantasies

For those of you who don’t already know it, Michael Crichton, the author of “Jurassic Park,” is a far-right lunatic. As you may recall, the plot of his last book revolved around some evil environmentalists who were perpetuating the hoax of global warming in order to terrify and manipulate the masses, and amass wealth, or some such bullshit. (You know how evil those environmentalists are.) Well, as you may also recall, a lot of writers called him on it at the time. One such writer was a Washington-based journalist for the “New Republic,” Michael Crowley, who penned a piece called “The Jurassic President.” In it, Crowley pointed out the enormous scientific gaffs in the book, as well as the outright lies, and drew attention to the fact that Crichton had gotten a private meeting with the President to discuss global warming when no respected climatologists had been given the opportunity. Apparently the story pissed Crichton off.

In his latest book, entitled “Next,” Crichton introduces us to a character named Mick Crowley. Mick, like the real-life Michael, is a Yale-educated political columnist in Washington. He also happens to enjoy – are you ready for this – anally raping infants. And, yes, you read that right. Check out the following clip from “Next”:

…The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers. Crowley was a wealthy, spoiled Yale graduate and heir to a pharmaceutical fortune…

It turned out Crowley’s taste in love objects was well known in Washington, but (his lawyer)–as was his custom–tried the case vigorously in the press months before the trial, repeatedly characterizing Alex and the child’s mother as “fantasizing feminist fundamentalists” who had made up the whole thing from “their sick, twisted imaginations.” This, despite a well-documented hospital examination of the child. (Crowley’s penis was small, but he had still caused significant tears to the toddler’s rectum.)

How fucking insane is that? And what publisher in his or her right mind would condone that kind of behavior from one of their writers?

So, here’s my idea. We launch a wiki and collaboratively write a short story about a past-his-prime novelist named Mick Crichton who enjoys… Hmmmm…. You know, it’s not really easy to think of something more offensive to say about a person than that he anally rapes infants with a tiny dick. Maybe Crichton isn’t past his prime after all.

[Crowley, to his credit, seems to be handling it well.]

update: I went ahead and acted on my idea about a collaboratively written short story featuring Mick Crichton. You can check out the story as it develops here. (So far, it’s pretty good. If you want to join in, the password is “asshole.”)

This entry was posted in Art and Culture. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Ted Glass
    Posted December 15, 2006 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    I guess we could say that he analy rapes infants with a huge cock (causing more trauma), but it doesn’t seem to pack the same punch.

  2. ol' e cross
    Posted December 15, 2006 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    My contribution will probably describe what he does to the raw rump roast before cooking for his dinner guests.

  3. Jim
    Posted December 15, 2006 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    An appropriate scenario for “Mick Crichton” might be a trip to the emergency room after a gerbilling session with a baby goes

  4. mike_1630
    Posted December 15, 2006 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    I’m all for it! You should check out, it’s one the easiest and fastest tools for wiki’s I’ve found :)

    I’m so bummed that Crichton is completely crazy – when I was in middle school I read Jurasic Park twice… and now this. Oh well.

  5. Dirtgrain
    Posted December 16, 2006 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Why do people with disgusting secrets so often get off on sharing them? At least everybody now knoes for sure to keep their babies away from him. Does he have children?

    I’m all for freedom of expression, so I won’t argue for censorship.

    Maybe it’s all part of a giant sting operation that Crichton and Bush cooked up in their meeting. With his Patriot Act super powers, Bush will discover the identities of all who buy the book. He will then turn them into conservative politicians and religious leaders. Perhaps that is all part of the initiation–some kind of vile rape or sex act (can we call this sex? Feh) to get into the club. I bet Crichton is a Skull and Boneser.

  6. mark
    Posted December 16, 2006 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Hey, Mike. I was thinking about PB Wiki. I’d used it before, for another project, after seeing it profiled on your friend’s vlog site. It’s pretty cool… I don’t know that anyone will want to work on this though. It’s an odd project. I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

  7. mark
    Posted December 16, 2006 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    And, yes, to the rump roast, and, yes, to gerbilling, and, yes, to the Skull and Bones connection. All brilliant ideas.

    And I think he should suffer from micropenis.

  8. Grandma
    Posted December 17, 2006 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    Might the small penis dig be a lame attempt at deflecting a libel suit?

    As described in a 1998 New York Times article, it is a sly trick employed by authors who have defamed someone to discourage their targets from filing lawsuits. As libel lawyer Leon Friedman explained to the Times, “No male is going to come forward and say, ‘That character with a very small penis, ‘That’s me!'”

  9. mbrutsch
    Posted December 18, 2006 at 2:50 pm | Permalink is open for business; the password is ‘crowley’ (no quotes).

  10. Ted Glass
    Posted December 18, 2006 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    It’s a good idea, but a day or so too late. Another PB Wiki page has already been set up for this project. The password is: asshole.

  11. mark
    Posted December 18, 2006 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    Do yourself a favor and check it out. There’s now a section with him making love to the bed sores on his elderly mother’s back. Brilliant stuff.

  12. mark
    Posted December 18, 2006 at 10:17 pm | Permalink


  13. rene
    Posted December 19, 2006 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    What a bright idea.

    It’s like someone says, “Hey, look, there’s a guy beating an old lady with a shovel.”

    Then someone else says, “Why don’t we find an old lady to beat with a shovel to show him how stupid he looks?”

    Sick fucks, all of you.

  14. Ted Glass
    Posted December 19, 2006 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    With all due respect, isn’t it more like someone says, “Hey, look, there’s a guy beating an old lady with a shovel,” and then a bunch of people, disgusted by what they see happening, head over and start beating the man off with his own shovel?

    I can see how you might find this distasteful, but I don’t think your analogy is correct.

  15. gnaa
    Posted December 19, 2006 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    I rape babys every single day with my tiny cock. You all are overreacting. BABY RAPE NEEDS MORE MAINSTREAM COVERAGE. Thank you Micheal Crichton for getting the truth out. With great power comes great responsibility. RAPE BABYS MORE PEOPLE IT’S AWESOME. Since it’s christmas also remember to get an inflatable baby jesus from Bill Orielly’s online store (simulated rape for those who celebrate ***CHRISTMAS***.

  16. chris
    Posted December 20, 2006 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    OK-I just had to come back for this. Every time I try to get out they keep pulling me back in!

    OK, so he like anally rapes babies, right? And then he…wait for it…that’s right! EATS IT!!!
    And btw, isn’t this where I left off last time I was here?

    Happy Holidays!

  17. mark
    Posted December 20, 2006 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    I KNEW you were still alive, Chris… I just KNEW it!

    Welcome back – again.

  18. freedomofspeach
    Posted December 28, 2006 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    freedom of speach. shut someone down and you find other consequences. i’m not at all agreeing with whatever “raping babies” book he wrote, but if you launch anti campaigns in regards to what someone writes the issue gets bigger and usually against your favor.

  19. cheesebrains
    Posted February 12, 2007 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    Wow, you’re an idiot. You must have missed the big picture that the book was trying to convey. Crichton may have only used a variation of his name like most Authors do in the first place. This isn’t even the first time that something of this nature has ocurred.

  20. Joe Shmoe
    Posted May 25, 2007 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    who are you to say such an awful thing about Michael Crichton? Making up lies!!!!!!!!!!
    Do I see a symbol that says everything is true on your site!?

  21. egpenet
    Posted May 25, 2007 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    All things are true on this site … only some things are more true here than others.

  22. Dirtgrain
    Posted May 26, 2007 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Did anybody read the book?

  23. egpenet
    Posted May 26, 2007 at 10:23 pm | Permalink


  24. mark
    Posted May 27, 2007 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    And what symbol might that be… the Fox News logo? And, seriously, if there is a logo out there in the internets that means “everything is true,” please send it to me. I want to start using it.

    And, no, I haven’t read the book – just the excerpts.

    I should go back to this collaborative writing project sometime. I think we got off to a pretty good start.

  25. John
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    OK,I don’t know where to start. First what do politics have to do with facts? Have any of you read “State of Fear”? He sites his sources. And “Global Warming” is a THEORY. If you actually do your research you would find out two things: (1) Yes temperatures are rising in some parts of the world, but overall its getting colder in most cities. (2) There are LESS green house gases in the air then there were in the 1940’s (3) “Global Warming” would have a negative affect on some parts of the world but would help others by offering longer growing seasons. And finally as far as the baby raping, it was a minor character that appears on two pages (for only a paragraph or so). So how about doing your homework before we fly off the handle next time.

  26. Posted September 1, 2008 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Global warming does not imply that every local area will warm at the same rate as the rest of the earth. Global warming is when the average temperature of the earth warms.

    As for “getting colder in most cities”, you have to cite what these cities are, what country and the actual count before you can make that claim. In my experience with weather data, american cities are off the scales in terms of warmer due to deforestation (build buildings, cut trees), overuse of air conditioners in summer (machines that belch out warm air while cooling the indoors) and the exploding number of gas vehicles on the road.

    Your point about longer growing seasons may be true, but overall, any large shift in temperatures affects more then the growing season of plants. For example, it also affects the growing season of parasite bearing mosquitos (malaria), which kill up to 1 million people every single year. And yes, this problem is getting worse and will eventually become a problem in southern florida and lousiana again, assuming that the only thing you care about is the good ol US of A.

    “State if Fear” may be your Bible, remember, this is a book of sensationalist fiction. Chrichton can hardly be considered a learned expert on the subjects of climate change and the many harmful effects of air pollution. Chrichton is an author of such well-researched classics as “Jurassic Park” and the amazingly stupid “Rising Sun”, which showed that Chrichton knew as much about Japan as I know about the prehistoric history of Swaziland.

    While global warming is sensationalized and simplified in the popular press, the reality is that it is much more complex than you think. Think about how complicated and volatile financial markets are. Now, amplify that complexity by 1,000,000 and you will start to realize how incredibly complicated and volatile weather is. We’re fucking around with something that is so much bigger than us. While the effects may not be Katrina style catastrophic, that does not imply that future generations will not suffer for our actions.

  27. John
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    Your right I should cite my source and I apologize for that. I will use my home town as an example. I’m a Kansas City native, and the our temperatures fluctuate regularly, but as a rule our record lows are more recent then our record highs (which often times were set between the 1940’s and 1970’s).

    And just to put another line of thought out there, maybe this weather trend known as global warming isn’t new (mind you it is a theory), maybe this is something that has been going on for some time and with the advance in knowledge and technology we are just recently starting to notice it.

    There is another explanation for why some cities are warming and others (like mine) are not. Its called the “Urban Heat Island” theory, which fits more along the lines of what you were saying. The EPA web site describes it:

    “For millions of Americans living in and around cities, heat islands are of growing concern. This phenomenon describes urban and suburban temperatures that are 2 to 10°F (1 to 6°C) hotter than nearby rural areas. Elevated temperatures can impact communities by increasing peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution levels, and heat-related illness and mortality.”

    It has nothing to do with green house gases. And further more, according to NASA and The Goddard Institute for Space Studies the warmest year in the United States on record was 1934, and the temperature has risen by less the .05 degrees Celsius between 1940 and 2000. as shown here: . And as far as the entire world the the temperature has risen less then .01 degrees Celsius as shown here: . So while I enjoyed the books “State of Fear” and “Next”, they are hardly my bible. Maybe it’s you who shouldn’t be worshiping at the alter of “An Inconvenient Truth”. Because while pictures maybe worth a thousand words, I find the facts more illuminating.

  28. Posted September 1, 2008 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    You assume that I worship at the altar of Al Gore, and I do not. I have not even seen that movie nor do I know much about the man besides that his neck seeps over his shirt collar.

    What you say about city warming is more or less reasonable but your methods are suspect. Record highs and lows can often be one time events and are not necessarily indicative of a warming trend. I have worked with data representing daily (sometimes hourly) temperatures from 1880 to the present day for many cities and have seen, with my own eyes, that there is a significant warming trend that appears in the early eighties, irregardless of one-time extremes. You are right, city temperature rise is likely due to man-made “Local Warming” rather than global warming.

    “And further more, according to NASA and The Goddard Institute for Space Studies the warmest year in the United States on record was 1934, and the temperature has risen by less the .05 degrees Celsius between 1940 and 2000”

    Firstly, the US is not the world. It is only a small part of the world. What we belch out, blows downwind to the rest of our neighbors and regardless of what anyone believes, air pollution is not a good thing for anyone.

    Again, you point to these one-time extremes. That’s like measuring your overall health based on that bout of mono you got in high school. Sure, it may be the highest fever you ever had, but it doesn’t mean you’re in good or bad health overall.

    Wow. I just looked at your figure and it confirms that temperature have been rising at an exponential rate since 1980 and that it’s gone up more than half a degree since that time. That’s a serious jump. You claim .01, but I see something more like more than half a degree.

    The question is not whether the earth is warming (it is), but whether than trend differs significantly from the trend that existed before. I have worked with raw data for global mean air temps (I’m a statistician) and have found that yes, the trend after 1980 is significantly different from the trend that existed before. Basically, whatever warming pace that existed before has quickened.

    Whether this is because of greenhouse gases, deforestation, air conditioners or even natural events is almost beside the point. It’s happening. Global warming is not a theory, it’s happening and isn’t going to get any better. Even a shift of a mere 1 degree worldwide within a human lifetime can have serious consequences for many parts of the globe and since humans have decided that they need to occupy every square inch of land on the planet, we’re going to have to switch gears and make sure that the planet is at least somewhat livable for everyone.

    Whether or not it’s out fault does not exclude of from blame for polluting the air, land, waterways and seas to a point that human life will be very uncomfortable for a lot of people. Maybe not in the US, but certainly in other places. But when the rest of the world suffers, eventually we will pay the price and so will China and India with their large economies. While you may like to put your head in the sand, I would hope that the US would set an example for the rest of world and clean up it’s act. Jesus is not going to save us from looking like assholes.

  29. ytown
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    Don’t let the facts in the way Dude. Since you are such a strong believer in man-made global warming, what are you doing to reduce its effect?

  30. Posted September 1, 2008 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Did I say that I was a believer in man-made global warming? No. I did not.

  31. ytown
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    What DO you say dude?

    “Did I say that I was a believer in man-made global warming? No. I did not.”

    “You assume that I worship at the altar of Al Gore, and I do not.”

    Your comments are straight out the liberal handbook, yet you never admit to stand for a candidate or issue when confronted? Come on dude, stick up for yourself. You can be secure in your choices and not insult others. Try it, you’ll like it.

  32. ytown
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    I’ll try my earlier question again since libs deflect so they don’t have to answer.

    “…what are you doing to reduce its effect?”

  33. ytown
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

    Mark, before flying off the handle on this non-story, maybe you should read the book and not some New York Times headline.

  34. Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Ytown. First, I know nothing about Al Gore. I do not support him. I despised his wife during the PMRC years.

    Second, I am not a liberal. To be honest, I don’t even really think I know what a liberal is. Perhaps you can help me out here.

    I stand for many issues, but I don’t feel that discussion is fostered by polarization and mud-throwing.

    Third, I work on research that tracks the effect of weather patterns on mosquitoes that transmit malaria to humans. Global climate change, man made or no, is changing the habitable map for these mosquitoes. Consequently, health professionals can use this information to target medicines and treated net distribution in countries with little or no resources.

    Does that answer your questions?

  35. ytown
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Isn’t this post from 2006?

  36. ytown
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the response. It sounds like interesting work. I know that malaria is a huge problem in the developing world and I hope your research helps fight this disease!

    I think that it is too easy for mud-slinging and isults on an anonymous blog. I respect Mark for putting his ideas and beliefs on public display, even though I disagree with much of what he says.

    I have found that when there is an opposite view point, that person becomes a target. It would be nicer to have open dialogue without the insults where ideas can be traded not insults.

  37. ytown
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    Wow, somebody used my name! Now that is scary! This is not my post:

    “Isn’t this post from 2006?”

    Who ever did that is getting a little carried away.

  38. Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

    Can you two please just face off in a boxing match in Riverside Park? I’ll promote it – the winner gets fried chicken from Biggies.

  39. ytown
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

    typical libs, want to fight anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

  40. Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    No, no, I don’t want to fight anyone. I just would like to see ytown and dude face off in a boxing match instead of jabbering and ruining these threads.

  41. Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Hey man, I’m as annoyed as you are.

  42. Brackache
    Posted September 1, 2008 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    Jesus is not going to save us from looking like assholes.

    dude, I think you just summed up the first seven chapters of Paul’s letter to the Romans. And I can attest from personal experience that this is so. Well said.

  43. ytown
    Posted September 2, 2008 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    Well said ytown! Keep up the good work!

  44. John
    Posted September 2, 2008 at 2:24 am | Permalink

    Dude, I am glad to be talking to someone educated on the subject. To often I get the typical responses of (1) Instantly seeing my point of view as ignorant [I used to be a firm believer of the media’s global warming] (2) Or seeing my point of view as a political stand. everyone is entitled to there opinions, what irritates me is when those opinions are uneducated such as the author of the above article. And you are absolutely correct about the one time extremes that form the records. But what I have observed from the graphs I have seen is that we have had a rise since the 1980’s but that was after a significant drop between the 1940’s and the late 1970’s. Another point I would like to make is that some weather stations having been set years ago, that may not be the most accurate because of the growth in land use and the urban heat island affect, are still being used. A weather station may have been placed in an isolated location at one point, but now because of the rate of growth may be set in the middle of a city in the present. And finally I have also found more cities with a cooling trend (which supports more urban heat island proposition): McGill,NV average temp has dropped 1 degree, Guthrie,OK has dropped a little more then .50 a degree, Boulder,CO has dropped a little more then .05 a degree, Truman,MO has dropped over 2 degrees, Greenville,SC has dropped more then 1 degree, and Ann Arbor,MI has dropped more then 1 degree. My source for this is the United States Historical Climatology Network. World wide Clyde,NWT has dropped 1 degree Cecilius. Paris,Le Bourget , Milano-Linate, Stuttgart,Germany , and Navacerrada,Spain all have slight cooling trends according to NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. As far as sticking my head in the sand, I do think we should take care of the environment but I don’t think we should do it out of a misplaced sense of guilt.

  45. Posted September 2, 2008 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    Well, it’s my suspicion that all of those cities have strong greenery projects. I know for a fact and Boulder and Ann Arbor do. This has likely contributed to the cooling effect you mention, but likely has less to do with the existence or non-existence of global warming. I also notice that these are all small cities with little urban sprawl thus incomparable to hulking giants like New York, LA, Chicago, Boston, Seattle and other places that large chunks of people live. Again, what you speak of here are localized American urban planning problems and are not indicative of the globe as a whole.

    These numbers are easily procured using Google, but do not stack up to a true analysis analyzing warming trends globally, nor do they stack up when the analysis is stratified into different climate zones. Cities are extremely small. Your house may be built in such a way that it is cooler than your neighbors but that does not say much about the climate of your overall local area. Your house is a small isolated event. You have to look at the big picture.

    I am in absolute agreement that taking care of the environment should not be a priority due to guilt. I am of the opinion that it is in our best interests and a society to insure that the world is a clean place to live in, just as I feel that it’s in my family’s interest to have a clean house to live in. I have never understood why conservative folks were so unwilling to champion the environment. It seem that it’s more conservative to clean things now to prevent future messes and expenditures. It’s plainly obvious that fossil fuels are a bad thing (that’s just a single example), since when is it conservative to sit on your ass and watch your house fill with smoke?

  46. Brackache
    Posted September 2, 2008 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    I can explain:

    1)A lot of Conservatives become defensive when they percieve their political opponants as using guilt, exaggeration, and fear to demand increased Government authority. They find it a manipulative and disengenuous attempt at power-grabbing, exactly like how progressives view NeoCon fear-mongering of terrorism.

    2)Many Conservatives do steward the environment well (especially as it pertains to private property rights), particularly those interested in hunting/fishing/etc.

    3)some Conservatives are assholes.

  47. John
    Posted September 3, 2008 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    Again you are correct, large cities temperatures are rising, but this only serves as further proof of my urban heat island proposition. The more land use the higher the temperature. This is also further proof against global warming, mainly because, as the name says, it should be global. Which isn’t true, because (like I said earlier) smaller cities are getting colder.

    And as far as the Google thing, I did cite my sources, and yes you can find these numbers on google but this is true of just about anything these days.

  48. Posted September 3, 2008 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    **(Dude screams)**

    “This is also further proof against global warming, mainly because, as the name says, it should be global.”

    That’s ridiculous. Here’s an example. You run a business. You find that Saturdays have higher profits than usual. Does this mean that your business over all is doing better? NO. Because you have 6 other days in the week and you could be losing more money on every single one of those days than before. Hence, your business may be doing worse than it was before.

    The U.S. is NOT the world. It is a very small part of the world. American cities are and even smaller part of the world. It is unreasonable to use a city in Kansas as a counter against a global phenomenon.

  49. Posted September 3, 2008 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Please don’t think I’m trying to insult you, I’m truly not. I’m also not trying to prove to you that global warming exists or does not exist, nor am I trying to show that it is man-made or not. I am just attempting to illustrate that your justifications are not going to work very well. It’s my job as a teacher.

  50. John
    Posted September 4, 2008 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    I do appreciate that, and I am enjoying our little conversation. My whole purpose here is to present the other sides of the debate. I’m tired of the media blaming every thing that happens on global warming. And I have presented other cities (outside of the United States) that are also cooling. My main point is that the warming trends being observed may be more of a land use issue and less of a green house gas issue.

  51. Posted September 4, 2008 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    That is a reasonable point to try and make, although observed warming trends are primarily based on data from area that is not city. Cities make up only a small part of the data set, there are millions of weather stations all around the globe that collect data 24 hours a day in every type of environment out there. Weather data is incredibly thorough.

    If you are going to try to show that global warming is a myth, pointing to city data will not help you make that point due to 1. the small geographic size of cities (that’s like trying to prove there is no link between smoking and lung cancer because your uncle bill smoked 3 packs a daya and didn’t get lung cancer) and 2. the wide number of factors specific to cities that will cloud your results such as greenery projects and air-conditioners.

  52. mark
    Posted November 5, 2008 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    The far-right anti-science author Michael Chrichton is now dead.

  53. John
    Posted December 1, 2008 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    Way to go, judge man by his political affiliations and not by the way he lived and he deeds he did. Way to show some class.

  54. Paw
    Posted December 1, 2008 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Class? Are you serious? Did you read the original post? It’s about Crichton putting one of his perceived adversaries in a book as a man with a small dick who likes to fuck his infant son in the ass.

  55. John
    Posted December 1, 2008 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    It was a FICTIONAL story, why would you feel it necessary to ridicule the dead? To me that shows that YOU have no class.

  56. John
    Posted December 1, 2008 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    And I read the book, this post takes it entirely out of proportion.

  57. mark
    Posted December 1, 2008 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    First off, I didn’t ridicule the dead. This post was written in 2006, and Crichton didn’t die until 2008. And I’m really not sure what you mean when you say that I’ve blown anal infant rape “out of proportion”? Where I’m from kind of thing would be a pretty big deal.

  58. John
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 2:29 am | Permalink

    I was talking about recent posts “THE FAR-RIGHT ANTI-SCIENCE AUTHOR MICHAEL CRICHTON IS NOW DEAD.” First of all why would add all that nonsense to the beginning? Second, how was he an “anti-science” author? The man wrote about science his entire career, and have you read the book? Do you know both sides of the story? The fact is this character was mentioned in passing. And while it may have been based on a real person, do you think Crichton is the only author to have ever done this?

  59. Paw
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    So anally raping a baby is OK if it’s done “in passing”? I don’t get it. Where are you from anyway?

  60. Ditch Digger
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Sure, it’s like tipping your hat, or saying “how d’you do.”

  61. John
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    So let me get this straight, when something is written in a fictional book its just as bad as doing it in the real world. So why aren’t we hunting down Stephen King, one of the characters in “The Green Mile” raped then murdered three little girls. Better round up a posse. Or we could always bring John Grisham, or Sir Author Conan Doyle to justice for any of the crimes they wrote about. Hell any number of author have written far worse then Crichton lets hunt them all down. All you people are so hung up on this one author. You think he’s the only guy to base a character in a book on a real person in this context. Have ANY of you read the book. Anyone? If not you have no point of reference. You have no way to no how this subject was referred to in the book. You have read snippets from the internet, the news, some other form of media and drawn your own conclusions instead of doing the research. You have taken two paragraphs from one book and judged the author as a person based on this. If anyone can justify doing so, please speak up. And then in a fit of some self righteous rage you find it necessary to write your own story about “Mick Crichton” doing a lot worse, in fact you have written an entire story about exactly what you criticize Crichton of doing. How does this prove anything? You say “That was wrong. I’ll show you by doing much, much worse.” According to your standards shouldn’t you be in the same boat as him now? Or is he just batting in the minors while you are slugging in the majors?

  62. Robert
    Posted December 3, 2008 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    I don’t get it. Did Crichton die in a boat?

    Oh, and yes John, I DO believe we need to hunt down Stephen King. Did you see “It”?

  63. Robert
    Posted December 3, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    Is Mark calling Crichton a creeton?

  64. John
    Posted December 7, 2008 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    No response mark, paw, ditch digger?

  65. Ditch Digger
    Posted December 7, 2008 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    No response to what? I don’t give a damn about this either way, I was just being a smart ass because arguing over this is retarded.

    No offense, but I couldn’t think of a better word.

  66. John
    Posted December 8, 2008 at 4:03 am | Permalink

    I totally appreciate the smart ass point of view. I’m usually that guy, but stupid people set me off, and a lot of people in here fit that description.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Jodi Lynn