As a rule, I don't respond to blog comments except in their original thread (and even then, not that often). But once every year or so, there's a disturbing one that merits a new post. One memorable such communication once came from a lady named Pam Futerer who, in response to a quickie essay of mine, fantasized about crushing my dick in a vise and cutting off my balls. Ah, good times.
Anyway, this time around, the honor goes to someone called Matt Vollmer, who only took a year and a half to respond to a Nobody's Business riff about the litigiousness of various dumbasses. For his comment, click on the link and scroll down until you see his name in blue.
One case I mentioned in my post — a post that got Mr. Vollmer so riled he demands my apology on behalf of one of the victims — was that of two young women in Florida who discovered the flammability of high-proof alcohol when they visited a nightclub where a fellow patron set fire to a stream of rum. Both women sustained serious burns. Pretty awful.
But here's my problem. They didn't sue the firebug. Rather, they filed suit against Bacardi because, they allege, the distiller's product is "defective" and "dangerous."
It's like getting stabbed and, instead of pressing charges against the assailant, suing the manufacturer of the knife. It's like finding grandma face-down in eight inches of water and suing the maker of the tub because the thing has a stopper.
Alcohol that ignites may be dangerous, but it isn't defective. It dutifully does what it's done for untold thousands of years, and anyone who has ever eaten crêpes suzettes, or banana foster, or any other flambéed food, knows this perfectly well.
Mr. Vollmer accuses me of "picking on burn victims to get [my] social networking fix." It's an odious charge. I obviously don't make light of people with severe burns — it's a horrendous injury that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. No, what I have a problem with are the craven opportunists who file lawsuits that don't seek justice but a big payout. More to the point, I detest the sundry exploiters of our legal system who give the truly culpable (such as the firestarter in the nightclub) a free pass, while going after a party that clearly has no culpability but does have deep pockets.
And no, that moneygrubbing perversion doesn't become less objectionable as the accuser's physical state is more pitiable (though I'm sure there are swarms of trial lawyers prepared to argue otherwise).
Unlike the hostility displayed by Ms. Futerer against my poor family jewels, Matt Vollmer didn't threaten me with castration, or even with a shotglass of flaming calvados.
He apparently saved the death threat for another blog, To The People, that, in an admittedly prick-ish and intemperate fashion, had also criticized the Florida litigants. Less than half an hour after Matt Vollmer posted his demand for an apology on Nobody's Business, a commenter named Matt (no full name given) threatened bodily harm against To the People's bloggers, confirming that his note was a "death threat" and closing with "be warned you motherfucker." Click on this link and then read the fourth comment.
Remember, both the Nobody's Business post and the one at To the People had lain dormant for 18 months. Is it the same Matt? You'd be forgiven for assuming so. But would anyone really be so muttonheadedly reckless as to leave an e-mail address in one location (you don't see it, but as this site's administrator, I do, along with commenters' IP adresses) and then issue an [ahem] anonymous death threat minutes later at the next site visited? It seems so.
In Matt Vollmer's world, anyone who deplores the vomitous and misguided behavior of a gold digger is way out of line just because said gold digger happens to be injured; but it's OK for him to promise to kill people whose views on gold-digging don't jibe with his own.
I don't think he gets just how repulsive and rationally bankrupt that is — not to mention that it's, you know, a crime.