But honestly, because he’s proven it’s possible to be gainfully employed in academia and functionally illiterate, I can’t even manage a few moments of schadenfreude. Remember that post I wrote yesterday? The one in which I clearly indicated that I’d condensed a thread’s worth of insults into a nonsensical stream of ad hominem?
Donald Douglas not only thinks Jeff Goldstein wrote it, he considers it to be a “deliciously devastating slam.” I’ll take the compliment on its face—the art of collage is an art—but the fact that someone employed by an institution of higher learning found that paragraph compelling is, I think we can all agree, probably the most embarrassing thing someone employed by an institution of higher learning could ever do. The only reasonable response to such a brazen display of idiocy is to take a screen-shot of it and put it on the internet forever:
Click to embiggen.
Update. Somehow, I always forget that when it comes to missing the point, Douglas will never be topped. He composed a "refutation" of this post in which he admits his error as only he can:
The gist of the attack is that somehow I'm functionally illiterate:
Because he’s proven it’s possible to be gainfully employed in academia and functionally illiterate, I can’t even manage a few moments of schadenfreude.
Sure, to be fair to Skanky Little Scotty, my bad. I could have sworn that was Jeff's comments at the post, "Shorter Jeff Goldstein." Chalk one up for the Big Bad Boys at Lawyers, Gays and Marriage, where academic giants like Robert Fuckwad Farley stiff good-faith conservatives for a thousand bucks while sucking back a few whiskey sours.
As a Cautious Man noted earlier, someone is not aware of all internet traditions; he is, however, attempting to start one of his own. It lacks a catchy name like "Shorter," but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a place in the Hall of Internet Traditions. It goes something like this:
- You demonstrate that Douglas has no idea what he's talking about.
- He responds by correcting a typo.
I'm not kidding. He responded to a post in which I demonstrated that he has problems with basic comprehension by writing:
Little Scotty's schtick is to attack conservatives for bad writing and alleged "functional illiteracy" while demonstrating—once again!—actual functional illiteracy.
His proof? I mistyped "version" as "verion" in the "Shorter" post. I hate to be pedantic, but since winding Douglas up is damn entertaining, I will: making a typographical error isn't evidence of "functional illiteracy," which Wikipedia defines as "a term used to describe reading and writing skills that are inadequate to cope with the demands of everyday life," e.g. "reading blog posts if you're a blogger." You're a blogger who by his own admission is incapable of reading blog posts, meaning that by the power vested in me by Wikipedia, I am within my rights to hereby declare you to be "a functionally illiterate blogger." See how that works?Of course you don't. You think that because Goldstein uses variations of the word "fuck," it's reasonable for someone to assume that the paragraph in the original post was written by him. By that logic, Goldstein also wrote what you said about Farley above—which would mean that you, sir, are a plagiarist.