That explains it.

These were 4 comments posted recently in response to Let’s ask Leonardo. I have had style, word usage, and other subtle linguistic markers in the text analyzed by the noted Forensic Linguistic Scientists, Hugh Potter and Mee Wun Lee, University of New England. These eminent scholars agree that these 4 texts were most likely written by 1 individual so should be regarded as 1 text. I will respond accordingly. Here is the text. My response shall follow.

Anonymous said... 4/30/2007 8:24 PM
how the fuck would u know knoxindiana??! ur a fucking douche bag who is too afraid to actually devulge herself and let speak what you believe. I'm sure u wouldnt say half the things you say if u weren't "anonymous", so i figure i should be too huh? Even though we all know who u r...cunt!

Anonymous said... 4/30/2007 8:37 PM
bitch you're fucked up

Anonymous said... 4/30/2007 8:37 PM
omg...this lady is fucking nuts!

Anonymous said... 4/30/2007 8:39 PM
someone needs to shut knoxindiana the fuck up! she prolly just cant get laid so she bitches about starke county all day! get a life whore!

Further forensic investigation revealed that these comments were sent from Bloomington, Indiana from Indiana University’s IP Address. (Well we are growing some brilliant scholars here in Indiana, eh?) I am unable to determine exactly what the native language of the writer actually is although it clearly isn’t English. The phrase “and let speak what you believe” seems most likely to be a pidgin from the Indonesian Archipelago or perhaps Java. However, “she prolly just cant get laid so she bitches about starke county all day” oddly seems to derive from a popular 1950’s ersatz Jamaican pop hit. (The expected “dayo, dayaayo, day da li and i wanna go ‘ome” has been left off to throw me off the scent, I think.) In any case I think it is most probable that the writer is a member of the tribe Homo floresiensis from the remote Indonesian island of Flores that I discussed very briefly in an earlier blog Under the Arches. Hugh and Lee concur. Perhaps it is the very person I have pictured there!

I wish I could determine the complaint of this person(?) (Is being a member of Homo if not actually member of the more specific sapiens sufficient to call someone a person?) Since this comment was on a piece about evolution v creationism I would assume that this person is a Creationist as I did happen to take the Evolutionary side of the question. I guess that pretty much explains it.