No it’s not.
I think you and JohnT have both been whooshed. Crowley is making a (pretty obvious, IMO) joke when he says working for big pharma is worse than being a baby raper.
Blast. 
indeed.
Is too.
I saw it as Michael Crichton is MY pretty bitch.
Susan
I have raised teenage boys. I know from sarcasm. That’s sarcasm.
Look, sarcasm is an overblown or ironic statement meant to contrast with the intended meaning of the sentence: that’s just a contradiction.
Well, perhaps it’s only obvious to those of us with half a brain.
You have half a brain too? Say, I’ve got an idea…
No it isn’t.
You’re American, aren’t you?
You can’t read a location field? Google “Tennessee”?
Anyway, since I apparently have to respond to an irrelevant non-sequitor, please note that a Brit also agreed that the wording was, at best, poorly written.
So, anyway… why the question?
Assuming the sarcasm angle is correct, the guy didn’t help his cause by making pathetic “jokes” about how working for a Pharma firm is worse than raping children.
I have not the slightest idea why anybody would even say such a thing, joking or not.
Possibly it would be more obvious in context.
You haven’t quite grasped this irony thing have you?
Who the fuck put all these fucking spoons here?
This will all be moot once we mandate people to add “But seriously, folks…” after each incident of sarcasm in their speech or writing.
I think it has to do with the sort of sense of humour one has. I recognised it as sarcasm immediately, since it’s just the sort of joke I would make. It sets you up to expect indignation at one of the most insulting insinuations someone can make about somebody else, and then the “punchline” is something completely unexpected–that he’s more upset about a lesser slight. It’s not funny once it’s explained, but I wanted to provide at least one perspective as to why it was funny.
Seriously, this is *exactly *why we need smilies on a message board.
I thought it was very funny, and obviously sarcastic (which I’ve not yet satisfactorily determined to be equivalent to ironic, but perhaps it is.)
( 
)
Similar to what Speaker for the Dead presumes, I saw it as Crowley’s attempt to show how out of proportion Crichton’s attitude was in general. You get pissed off about a negative book review? You basically accuse the other guy, in print, of being a pedophile! Well fine. Then, then, I’ll point out that I thought it would be so bad, but then didn’t realize I wasn’t called a ( ::: gasp ::: ) pharmaceutical-industry profiteer instead!! I’ll be fine after all. Wha? Yeah, utter absurdity that all, yanno? At least, that’s how I read the whole exchange. As one trying to put the idiotic extremes exactly where they ought to be, way out in LaLa land.
/just another observation from this side o’ the peanut gallery