Sunday, March 20, 2005

COM: Spongebob's pants in a squareknot

. . . again.

I personally have been enjoying Keith Olbermann's takes on the whole affair, especially after he became a target of a certain faction known best for being their own worst enemy. Well, more today . . .

More Sponge Bob from JimDob

(i'm having difficulty getting permalinks for the four earlier stories at MSNBC that actually work, so here's a couple of choice selections and my reply to KO.

The best of them was not a misspelling but a Freudian slip of biblical proportions. A correspondent, unhappy that I did not simply agree with her fire-and-brimstone forecast for me, wrote “I showed respect even though I disagreed with you and yet you have the audacity to call me intelligent.”

Well, you have me there, Ma’am. My mistake.
and this:

— Dee, Hixson, Tennessee:
“Your prejudism is definately showing.”

I can't even contemplate what people who oppose prejudism would be called.
and my reply (which i edited down and for a goof):


Perhaps i'm just a ignert texan but:

Re: "I can’t even contemplate what people who oppose prejudism would be called."

Down here we call 'em antiprejudismics. Or antiprejudismicists for short.

Re: "It is a general belief among society that Spongebob is gay."

. . . What i don't get -- 'scuse me while i sort out my thoughts on this -- see, i was told . . . that the gay thing is about actions 'n not about the person -- so, assuming some facts about that, i'm guessing it would be awful hard for a cartoon character to really BE gay, even if they were having immortal thoughts about it in their squarepants you know. 'Course if it IS about the person and not the actions, then i'm just a little more confused about a sponge bein', you know, a person. Just confused here, that's all.

And finally,

RE: "I couldn’t get over the gay undertones."

Me neither . . . Maybe they need a squid-eye for the sponge-guy makeover or sumthin'. Again assumin' the confusin' is true or it ain't.


Post a Comment

<< Home