Sullivan's Post Is Allah-ta Crap
I wish I were making this up. The world is going completely bananas over mullahs.The problem? It's all a load of crap. How do I know? Well, I'm the proud owner of the brand new Yahoo email address email@example.com. Go ahead, send me an email. I'll write back to you.
In his post, Sullivan links to the jeremiad of Ms. Callahan in which she claims that no Yahoo ID she requested, including kallahar385753984753, was available. Also not true. I just tried to get that ID and Yahoo said, "Congratulations, the ID kallahar385753984753 is available!" Now, this took me about five minutes to debunk. What gives, Andrew? It's called basic research. I believe they teach that at Oxford, no?
Sometimes I get the feeling that Sullivan just really, desperately wants these things to be true.
This is allah4500231, signing off.
Update: Pepe has provided this link to a story in the Register that says that Yahoo, in fact, unbanned "Allah" after this story got out. According to Yahoo, "'Allah' was one word being used for [hateful] purposes, with instances tied to defamatory language." Therefore, Yahoo banned the word themselves and not, it appears, at the behest of the mad mullahs of Andrew Sullivan's nightmares. Still, at the time of Sullivan's post, his research would have confirmed Callahan's story. Correction noted. The assumption that Yahoo's decision was indicative of some world-wide conspiracy to placate Islamic fundamentalists was, alas, his own leap of "faith."
Update 2: In case any of you are wondering about my own research ethic, the story in the Register was posted 27 minutes after my post originally appeared. You know what they say: Weblogistan has bloody borders.
Update 3: In case I have been remiss, apologies to Andrew Sullivan (and Oxford) for impugning his research ethic. I certainly have issues with his views on Islam of late (you can read all about it by clicking here and scrolling down to the posts on the cartoon controversy), but I was too quick to jump on this one.