I don’t know Selwyn Duke personally, so I’m in no position to question either his motives, or his qualifications to opine on the hot button issues of the day. All I know about him I have gleaned from his writings, but this data, skimpy though it may be, has lead me to the following conclusions:
1. He thinks you’re a bigot.
2. He thinks he’s smarter than you (so smart, in fact, that he can convince you — through sheer force of logic! — that he’s not a bigot).
3. Based on his name alone, he would have made a fine third tier silent film actor.
4. As long as there’s a black man in the White House, Selwyn will be churning out inches of faux erudition proving that school segregation was Thurgood Marshall’s fault.
With relativistic people, there is no such thing as a true axiom
Well, that’s too bad, because a “true axiom” sounds great. I’m not sure exactly how you’d make a self-evident truth even truer, but there must be a way; it probably involves reversing the polarity, or adding flavor crystals…
yet you’d never know it listening to our modern mantras.
I have to admit, I do miss the old fashioned mantras, the kind the Greatest Generation used to chant. Makes me nostalgic for the way my grandma’s kitchen always smelled of Old Dutch Cleanser and incense.
We hear things such as “Our strength lies in our diversity,” “Religion has caused all the wars in history,” and “Everything is a matter of perspective” proclaimed with theological assurance. Of course, the last supposition is contradictory, and embracing it renders moral supposition itself meaningless.
Yes, pull on your Wellington boots, it’s going to be a bit of a slog.
Regardless, it’s natural for man to make sense of the world by “profiling” elements of reality.
For instance, in last week’s column, All the president’s bigoted men, Selwyn made sense of his world by profiling a bunch of black people:
For all intents and purposes, politically liberal blacks are by definition bigoted.This is true virtually to a man.
This seems somewhat prejudicial — and it is — but as we’ll see, it’s not a negative prejudice.
Many will say that I’m prejudiced for painting all the members of such a large group with the same brush. But let’s note that “prejudice” in the negative sense denotes an unfavorable opinion about a person, group or thing that hasno basis in reality.
To paraphrase Trent Lott, if only beleaguered white people had taken a break from applying police dogs and fire hoses to the problem of civil rights to explain that blanket statements about racial minorities aren’t bigotry if they’re true, then we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years. Anyway, back to this week’s cerebral extrusions…
Understand that bigotry is simply a manifestation of one of the Seven Deadly Sins: wrath. It is not the end-all and be-all, the source of all our woes. It is not, relatively speaking, even a major problem (although, it waxes when we let the Sharptons, Jacksons and Obamas of the world stir the pot).
In fact, we’d hardly have any measurable race prejudice at all in this country if it wasn’t for African-Americans, because even though they make up only 13.5% of the population, their high number of liberal bigots is totally screwing up the curve.
So the question is not whether bigotry exists and is a problem, as this is true of every sin. It concerns whether it is a characteristic problem.In other words, if we were to constantly lament our lacking math ability, it would imply one of two things. It either stands out in reality, making us pay it some mind, or it stands out only in our minds, in which case we are detached from reality.
I’m guessing you picked Door Number Two.
If the former, it would have to pale in comparison to the mathematical achievement of other nations or to our ability in other areas, such as English and history. So the question is, does our obsession with bigotry meet one of the last criterion’s two elements?
Well, judging by last that paragraph, I don’t think math is our biggest problem.
Let’s now contrast this manifestation of wrath with the rest of our national sins.
Let me guess…Boobies?
It’s obvious where we should start. Given that we have sexual imagery and innuendo everywhere, classes in pornography and “sexology” in colleges, and stories of children re-enacting Caligula’s court in schools…
Another No Child Left Behind success story!
…can we really make the case that bigotry is a greater problem than lust?
African-Americans would be entirely content with their place in society if it wasn’t for the rabble rousing effects of Black Tail magazine!
What about greed? Well, given the Bernie Madoffs of the world, the recent Wall Street woes, rapacious government officials and the long-accepted maxim about the lust for money being the root of all evil, it just may rank a bit higher as well.
Tell you what, Sel, I’ll be more than willing to admit that greed is just as corrosive as bigotry on the day that the black community’s biggest problem isn’t unemployment, or underfunded schools, or unequal treatment before the law, but how the heck they’re going to explain away their billion dollar bonuses.
Sloth? Our welfare state and handout-and-entitlement mentality.
Welfare Queens and uninsured paupers who’d rather go to an emergency room and drive up premiums for everyone who already has insurance, rather than die and reduce the surplus population? Selwyn’s looking at you.
Envy? Class warfare.
Why look, young Selwyn has a Frank Luntz-tested buzzword foreverything. He has learned his catechism, the beamish boy! And of course, the great thing about turning social ills into personal vices is that some of them cancel each other out. If the Have-Nots would just not demand to have what the Haves have, that would put an end to class warfare, which in turn would decriminalize Greed.
Pride? Given how people are loath to admit error –
True. Bush never admitted he was wrong to ignore the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US.” He never admitted the Iraq War was a mistake; Cheney never admitted that permitting — even demanding — that the U.S. military and intelligence agencies use torture on captured terrorism suspects had a deleterious effect on national security…
think Obama and his refusal to apologize to the Cambridge police — and the super-size egos that abound, this trumps bigotry also.
Oh, right. I guess my deadly sin is that I tend to get hung up on the little things and miss the Big Picture.
This lack of perspective is no small matter
Yeah, I’ve noticed.
Just think about race-based quotas, affirmative action and set asides. Consider the assumption that relative racial homogeneity within a business or organization equates to racial animosity in its leaders’ hearts
The only way to prove that the reason a company hasn’t hired any blacks is because they don’t want to hire any blacks is to perform open heart surgery on each member of the Board of Directors, and everybody in Personnel. And that’s expensive. Which means that it’s primarily due to frivolous lawsuits by black people alleging employment discrimination that the cost of health care is so high.
…or how largely white neighborhoods are targeted with “low income” housing
You know, Selwyn’s beginning to talk about minorities the same way that obnoxious dork at the beginning of Night of the Living Dead talked about zombies: “They’re coming to get you, Barbara…!”
All the while we have schools teaching perversion, profligate government spending, illegal aliens “undocumented” into legitimacy, criminals who go unpunished, slackers who are rewarded, heroes who are derided and traitors who are exalted. We have caricatured virtue and vice, exaggerating some parts to grotesque proportions while ignoring others.
Hell, after this paragraph alone we can scratch “Caricature virtue and vice” off our To Do list.
The result is that we misdirect our scalpel during “corrective” surgery, slicing off healthy tissue while allowing cancerous tumors in our midst to grow unfettered.
Hm. “[C]ancerous tumors in our midst,” I wonder if that’s supposed to be some kind of metaphor for certain people…?
Nazi ideologists frequently employed [medical and disease metaphors] in their public attacks on the Jews. In these metaphors, the Jews were compared to various types of bacilli or disease: cancers, plague, or tuberculosis.
Nah. Probably not…Anyway, I shouldn’t compare Selwyn’s column to Nazi rhetoric; after all, he hasn’t broken Godwin’s law…
The modern leftist is as blind as a Nazi who thinks he is good because he is hygienic and punctual.
Oops. Looks like Mother Superior jumped the gun there…
Yet this leftist conception of virtue is as shallow as it is narrow; its definition of goodness doesn’t seem to involve love for what one defends as much as equal-opportunity hatred. As to this, I have long observed something: liberals treat blacks like people; the problem is that they don’t treat people like people. That is to say, they treat blacks like everyone else, but they treat everyone pretty shabbily.
What does that mean, exactly? It’s not like liberals go around torturing people…
With Torquemada-like zeal they advance the dogma that we must treat all people equally…
Those where the days, back when the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission could impose the Auto-da-fe, instead of these wimpy fines.
Equally at what moral level? You can treat people equally by killing them all with the same expedition and ferocity.
And that’s how we get from the liberal push to provide health care for all Americans, to forcing patients to stand in their hospital gowns before a leftist Star Chamber and defend their right take a beta blocker.
So here is the implied standard: you may curse people out generically for five minutes with seething hatred, just don’t utter one racial epithet. You may let everyone starve, just don’t give one race a morsel of food another cannot digest.
Lactose-intolerance is the new Black.
You may corrupt all races with vile hip-hop anti-culture, just don’t imply that it is more corruptive than anything else. This is our national hang-up, our racial Puritanism.
I agree, Mr. Duke, that your column is rich in “racial Puritanism,” I just don’t think it means what you want us to think it means. So I guess after all this, I’ve learned one more thing about Selwyn: He seems to be dying to shout out certain words and ideas that even American Thinker wouldn’t publish or condone, but he believes he’s smart enough to encode his message in such a way that only the Right Kind of People will be able to decrypt it. So actually, he’s pretty stupid.
Okay, so two things.
Posted by scott on Wednesday, August 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
36 Responses to “Duke of Hurl”
“slackers who are rewarded, heroes who are derided . . .”
Sounds like the Republicans during the 2004 election, but maybe that’s just me.
Sounds like the Republicans during the 2004 election, but maybe that’s just me.
Is this the first Turing Test victor?
Oh, this poor man! This man is actually alive somewhere, breathing and walking around, believing himself to be a genius exalted by his intellect above us, the fecund groundlings. I love this blog, but I think this may be my favorite post. And I don’t think Selwyn would even be smart enough to understand just how thoroughly he was pwned. This guy!!
I’m sorry, but Selwyn’s piece is just too disturbing. Its creepiness overpowered your wit (no small feat) and sucked all the funny out of the post.
Well, damn, that looks like a criticism of you. It’s not.
No, J, because it cannot pass for intelligent.
Awww, isn’t it cute when really, REALLY stupid people try to show how smart they are?
It’s link watching a stoned monkey trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube. Except with a less successful outcome. And more feces flinging.
It’s link watching a stoned monkey trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube. Except with a less successful outcome. And more feces flinging.
With relativistic people, there is no such thing as a true axiom
Worst. Bumper. Sticker. Ever.
Worst. Bumper. Sticker. Ever.
Seriously, what do you all think the probability is that young Selwyn will murder someone some day?
Sociopathy, racism and deep-seated social resentments, combined with an abiding belief that he’s smarter than everyone else… I’ll bet though that it won’t be a race killing, but rather will be domestic homicide.
His wife or girlfriend would be wise to watch her back.
Sociopathy, racism and deep-seated social resentments, combined with an abiding belief that he’s smarter than everyone else… I’ll bet though that it won’t be a race killing, but rather will be domestic homicide.
His wife or girlfriend would be wise to watch her back.
Hey, I saw this bumper sticker the other day. It was on a car that also featured a Freedom Works decal.
But I do not know precisely what it means. I would like to run it through the Selwynator, because I think it would explain a lot, but I can’t find the Selwynator, or maybe it’s broke ’cause the vandals took the handles.
“Individualism: One’s Ultimate Diversity”
I guess my foremost obstacle is the use of “One’s”. I assume it means “a person’s” rather than “one is” (an uncontraction), although saying “one’s” seems a bit twee for the context.
So let’s see: “Individualism: My [or Your] Ultimate Diversity”. But it still doesn’t make sense, unless the idea that you (the individual) are the only thing that matters, and similarly (and vaguely melodically) “all I need is me”.
But I still think it’s a crappy bumper sticker, and yet someone liked it enough to print it, and someone else liked it enough to stick it on their bumper. So it must have meaning, even if it’s a relativistic non-axiomatic sort of meaning.
Is this an alternate translation? “Individualism: Anyone Who Is Not Me Should Eat Shit and Die, Unless You Want To Be Like Me, In Which Case Operators Are Standing By….”
I do not know. But I wish our first reaction to stuff was more like, “Um, can I help?” rather than “Fuck you”. Is Selwyn related to Godwin? Can I help him?
Feh. Tiresome. Want kitties. Or puppies. To play with, OMG, not to eat.
But I do not know precisely what it means. I would like to run it through the Selwynator, because I think it would explain a lot, but I can’t find the Selwynator, or maybe it’s broke ’cause the vandals took the handles.
“Individualism: One’s Ultimate Diversity”
I guess my foremost obstacle is the use of “One’s”. I assume it means “a person’s” rather than “one is” (an uncontraction), although saying “one’s” seems a bit twee for the context.
So let’s see: “Individualism: My [or Your] Ultimate Diversity”. But it still doesn’t make sense, unless the idea that you (the individual) are the only thing that matters, and similarly (and vaguely melodically) “all I need is me”.
But I still think it’s a crappy bumper sticker, and yet someone liked it enough to print it, and someone else liked it enough to stick it on their bumper. So it must have meaning, even if it’s a relativistic non-axiomatic sort of meaning.
Is this an alternate translation? “Individualism: Anyone Who Is Not Me Should Eat Shit and Die, Unless You Want To Be Like Me, In Which Case Operators Are Standing By….”
I do not know. But I wish our first reaction to stuff was more like, “Um, can I help?” rather than “Fuck you”. Is Selwyn related to Godwin? Can I help him?
Feh. Tiresome. Want kitties. Or puppies. To play with, OMG, not to eat.
[...] World-O-Crap on Selwyn Duke [...]
No no no- the bumper sticker is saying “we don’t need no stinkin minorities to have diversity because each one of US white guys is an ultimate individual, wild and free”.
or something.
I never knew “wrath” was a sin, and its too bad because I’m a very wrathful person, especially when driving. So being wrathful makes me a bigot, I guess. Except I treat minorities just the same as I treat “regular” people, but I treat “regular” persons shabbily.
Is Selwin (who no doubt has “roamed from town-to-town to hide his shame”) saying that Liberals posses all the seven deadly sins? Or just some of them, like bigotry-wrath?
or something.
I never knew “wrath” was a sin, and its too bad because I’m a very wrathful person, especially when driving. So being wrathful makes me a bigot, I guess. Except I treat minorities just the same as I treat “regular” people, but I treat “regular” persons shabbily.
Is Selwin (who no doubt has “roamed from town-to-town to hide his shame”) saying that Liberals posses all the seven deadly sins? Or just some of them, like bigotry-wrath?
So either Selwyn was locked on the family tennis court from age five, found in swaddling clothes and raised by a pack of amnesiacs whose van, which they had forgotten how to drive, a minor detail since they’d lost the keys anyway, happened to contain among its detritus the first 237 pages of Roget’s Pocket Thesaurus, four panels from an Alphonse and Gaston cartoon, date unknown, and a galley copy of The Collected Speeches of Everett Dirksen, or else someone at some point must’ve graded at least one of his papers.
The trouble with relativistic people is that they’re moving so darned fast that you don’t have to time to even ask them about their axioms, let alone find out whether they’re true or not. I mean, how would they even hear our modern mantras as they cruise along at light speed? Jerks.
Based on his name alone, he would have made a fine third tier silent film actor.
I was thinking that Selwyn Duke would be a good name for a recurring character in the Dukes of Hazzard– Luke and Bo Duke’s distant city-bred cousin, who, convinced he was smarter than the homespun Duke boys and Uncle Jesse, appeared from time to time to attempt to bamboozle them out of the family farm, which of course sat on valuable land needed by Selwyn’s boss, who built nuclear power plants or something equally likely to dam up the boys’ favorite crick.
Given to Jonathan-Harris-style alliterative scorn (these boonie-bound bumpkins, etc.),
he nevertheless always had the tables turned on his schemes by the boys, usually after a bit of wisdom from Jesse and if we were lucky, some cleavage shots of Daisy.
And of course a car chase.
Seriously, he is a very scary echo of John Dall’s character in “Rope”– convinced of his own superiority and exemption from ordinary moralities as a result.
Does crap on so, doesn’t he?
I was thinking that Selwyn Duke would be a good name for a recurring character in the Dukes of Hazzard– Luke and Bo Duke’s distant city-bred cousin, who, convinced he was smarter than the homespun Duke boys and Uncle Jesse, appeared from time to time to attempt to bamboozle them out of the family farm, which of course sat on valuable land needed by Selwyn’s boss, who built nuclear power plants or something equally likely to dam up the boys’ favorite crick.
Given to Jonathan-Harris-style alliterative scorn (these boonie-bound bumpkins, etc.),
he nevertheless always had the tables turned on his schemes by the boys, usually after a bit of wisdom from Jesse and if we were lucky, some cleavage shots of Daisy.
And of course a car chase.
Seriously, he is a very scary echo of John Dall’s character in “Rope”– convinced of his own superiority and exemption from ordinary moralities as a result.
Does crap on so, doesn’t he?
Actually, he reminds me more of Kevin Kline’s convinced-he’s-an-intellectual character in “A Fish Called Wanda”.
well, it’s nice to see that with writers like this and Ellis Washington that the repuks have the “stupid people with a thesaurus” demographic locked up…
What a pose, Selwyn.
And what a poseur.
And what a poseur.
His wife or girlfriend would be wise to watch her back
Absolutely. For lots of reasons.
Absolutely. For lots of reasons.
As long as there’s a black man in the White House, Selwyn will be churning out inches
I doubt he’s that well-hung.
I’m not sure exactly how you’d make a self-evident truth even truer, but there must be a way; it probably involves reversing the polarity, or adding flavor crystals…
Rhinestones, Scott.
Regardless, it’s natural for man to make sense of the world by “profiling” elements of reality.
This is actually true, of course. But also, of course, most people understand that it’s making a generalization and many refuse to make it out to be more than that, like making it, say, the truth about all of the profilees.
Understand that bigotry is simply a manifestation of one of the Seven Deadly Sins: wrath.
Wow. The utter stupidity of this psychobabblic observation would stun an elephant.
Wrath, huh? Well, at least he’s admitting he’s an angry little prick, which is a step towards enlightenment.
Most of us rational folks think bigotry is a form of fear, but I’ll let that pass.
If the former, it would have to pale in comparison to the mathematical achievement of other nations or to our ability in other areas, such as English and history.
Scott, you missed a softball here.
A native English speaking country surpasses the rest of the world in….speaking English!
Hooray for America!
Listen, when Dukey gets passably close to a point, someone come get me. I have to make a sandwich for lunch.
I doubt he’s that well-hung.
I’m not sure exactly how you’d make a self-evident truth even truer, but there must be a way; it probably involves reversing the polarity, or adding flavor crystals…
Rhinestones, Scott.
Regardless, it’s natural for man to make sense of the world by “profiling” elements of reality.
This is actually true, of course. But also, of course, most people understand that it’s making a generalization and many refuse to make it out to be more than that, like making it, say, the truth about all of the profilees.
Understand that bigotry is simply a manifestation of one of the Seven Deadly Sins: wrath.
Wow. The utter stupidity of this psychobabblic observation would stun an elephant.
Wrath, huh? Well, at least he’s admitting he’s an angry little prick, which is a step towards enlightenment.
Most of us rational folks think bigotry is a form of fear, but I’ll let that pass.
If the former, it would have to pale in comparison to the mathematical achievement of other nations or to our ability in other areas, such as English and history.
Scott, you missed a softball here.
A native English speaking country surpasses the rest of the world in….speaking English!
Hooray for America!
Listen, when Dukey gets passably close to a point, someone come get me. I have to make a sandwich for lunch.
“Individualism: One’s Ultimate Diversity”
I think this is supposed to be clever — because it’s playing around with many vs. one, and then using one as a pronoun too. I.e., as Kathy said, one person can be diverse within himself (or herself, theoretically), and that’s the only diversity necessary, the internal kind rather than the policy-affecting kind.
Or, put another way, “I contain multitudes,” in the words of noted hardcore conservative intellectual Walt Whitman.
I think this is supposed to be clever — because it’s playing around with many vs. one, and then using one as a pronoun too. I.e., as Kathy said, one person can be diverse within himself (or herself, theoretically), and that’s the only diversity necessary, the internal kind rather than the policy-affecting kind.
Or, put another way, “I contain multitudes,” in the words of noted hardcore conservative intellectual Walt Whitman.
I can tell by the picture that he is a deep thinker. Either that or he super-glued his finger to his chin.
Or in this case, “I am vast/I contain platitudes.”
Or “I am fat/I contain preservatives.”
Or “I am fat/I contain preservatives.”
Doghouse: …and the collected works of Bulwer-Lytton? Except Bulwer-Lytton was intelligible, if -uh- not well written.
‘Sloth? Our welfare state and handout-and-entitlement mentality.’
Would you let this asshole know that the only welfare queens left are the Corporate ones?
If the rethugs hadn’t gotten rid of AFDC, there would be a lot less homeless families living under highways right now.
Would you let this asshole know that the only welfare queens left are the Corporate ones?
If the rethugs hadn’t gotten rid of AFDC, there would be a lot less homeless families living under highways right now.
He sure looks a lot like Sean Hannity. Is he what happens when the Hannity’s inbreed?
Oh, it’s the second one, scripto.
actor212, your second comment made me laugh out loud, as did AnnPW’s.
mary b, I thought Sean Hannity was a product of inbreeding. That, or a lab experiment involving petri dishes and a stoned monkey with a Rubik’s Cube.
actor212, your second comment made me laugh out loud, as did AnnPW’s.
mary b, I thought Sean Hannity was a product of inbreeding. That, or a lab experiment involving petri dishes and a stoned monkey with a Rubik’s Cube.
and stories of children re-enacting Caligula’s court in schools…
Gore Vidal was not any happier with this version, let me tell you.
Gore Vidal was not any happier with this version, let me tell you.
Maybe they should re-enact stories from the Bible instead. Like Lot and his daughters, or Jacob, his two cousin-wives, and their servants. Or Tamar and her father-in-law. Or Abraham and his half-sister Sarah. Or…
Super-Glue, eh? I thought he was reflectively picking a pimple.
OTOH, were it to be a successful, or fruitful, pick, his head might collapse.
Can you imagine going out to dinner with this guy? Would he sit there portentously, volubly analyzing evidence of Deadly Sins (and their spinoffs) in the menu, the prices, the decor, and the demeanor of the wait-staff?
I am amazed by Scott’s ability and willingness to actually read this stuff – and to wittily riposte! I wouldn’t make it past the first paragraph. Also props to actor 212 for figuring out what ” ‘profiling’ elements of reality” means. (Though I thought we’d all been arguing this reality thing back & forth since Plato. But if ChinMaster Selwyn has resolved it at last…)
So, Doghouse, you think this psychosis is the result of his getting a C in 7th grade? Maybe, who knows, from a teacher of darker tint than himself.
OTOH, were it to be a successful, or fruitful, pick, his head might collapse.
Can you imagine going out to dinner with this guy? Would he sit there portentously, volubly analyzing evidence of Deadly Sins (and their spinoffs) in the menu, the prices, the decor, and the demeanor of the wait-staff?
I am amazed by Scott’s ability and willingness to actually read this stuff – and to wittily riposte! I wouldn’t make it past the first paragraph. Also props to actor 212 for figuring out what ” ‘profiling’ elements of reality” means. (Though I thought we’d all been arguing this reality thing back & forth since Plato. But if ChinMaster Selwyn has resolved it at last…)
So, Doghouse, you think this psychosis is the result of his getting a C in 7th grade? Maybe, who knows, from a teacher of darker tint than himself.
Ah, y’know, I was trying to express sympathy for anyone who had to try to educate him, on the off-off-chance that anyone did.
I think I stared at that opening sentence too long. Where does one get the construction “relativistic people” exactly? Or “true axiom”, which is more than a redundancy, and more than an illiteracy. They both sound like a six-year-old who just watched a program where adults use big words, if there are such things anymore. And then, of course, he manages to get it wrong on top of it. Relativism proceeds from axiomatic truth; if Selwyn’s collection of metaphysical hoodoo does he might explain why it comes in 225 flavors in this country alone. But, of course, he didn’t mean “axiom”. He meant “permanent, unvarying, universal Truth”, which means that he is saying, in effect, that relativists believe in relativism, which means we had to solve the Sunday Jumble just to get to a tautology, although, in fairness, it’s still probably some of his best work. And that’s before we reach the second clause.
And if I recall, that’s pretty much the same technique Spock used to short-circuit the animatronic brains of Roger C. Carmel’s robots.
I think I stared at that opening sentence too long. Where does one get the construction “relativistic people” exactly? Or “true axiom”, which is more than a redundancy, and more than an illiteracy. They both sound like a six-year-old who just watched a program where adults use big words, if there are such things anymore. And then, of course, he manages to get it wrong on top of it. Relativism proceeds from axiomatic truth; if Selwyn’s collection of metaphysical hoodoo does he might explain why it comes in 225 flavors in this country alone. But, of course, he didn’t mean “axiom”. He meant “permanent, unvarying, universal Truth”, which means that he is saying, in effect, that relativists believe in relativism, which means we had to solve the Sunday Jumble just to get to a tautology, although, in fairness, it’s still probably some of his best work. And that’s before we reach the second clause.
And if I recall, that’s pretty much the same technique Spock used to short-circuit the animatronic brains of Roger C. Carmel’s robots.
I have the feeling that if pressed to explain his turgid ramblings in plain English, Selwyn would be lost. Reminds me of the stuff that one gets from the post-modernism generator.
Are we sure Selwyn didn’t get his education from watching The Bowery Boys? He sounds like Slip Mahoney to me.
Well, he is smarter than me. His finger is not actually in his nose. Although, to be fair (to me), he may well be contemplating which nostril to hit. There is no indication that he was thinking about what he was writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment