UnpleasantlySexy

While I am not typically prone to ridiculing my best friend in public, this one is too delicious. Let me explain that, for what seems like YEARS now, I've been trying to steer him away from his willy-nilly use of the word "your" in situations that require the contraction "you're". That is the reason I felt the need to insult him so severely.

John sent me this e-mail yesterday:

did u know sam can also be a girls name? so....y'our kinda like a girl...your lack of gender identification is probably one of the reasons why u cant understand my use of the word "your"

That's all there is to it. I have not exaggerated the misuse of punctuation, grammatical rules, spelling, abbreviations, and so forth, nor have I changed any part of it. Copied and pasted.

Is he really so mentally challenged as to send ME such an e-mail?

Yes. Yes he is.

But we are not done, for beneath that garbled insult is his "e-signature", which reads as such:

"A society's or political community's reason for being is not the security of the state but the human person. Christ said, "Man is not for the sabbath; the sabbath is for man." He puts human beings as the objective of all laws and all institutions. Humans are not for the state; the state is for them!" -Oscar Romero

As his quotational vandalism could not stand unpunished, here is my reply:

It's not my fault that you have prosthetic testicles, John. If God wanted you to have 'em, he'd have given 'em to you from the start. Don't take it out on me, you nutless pansy.

Okay, that wasn't so high-minded, but it was followed by MY new e-mail signature, designed specifically for e-mails to John:

This is my big paragraph of pseudo-philosophical diarrhea that I'm putting at the end of all my e-mails so that everybody who reads my e-mails will think that I'm smarter than I really am, and so that I can attempt to force my own personal idea of "deep thinking" down the throat of each and every single person who ever receives an e-mail from me, and I do this with reckless disregard to the fact that, despite your initial desire to read my five-word response to your e-mail, some folks may NOT want to scan down seventeen pages of theory that once was fascinating, but is now reduced to e-mail signatures, which does nothing to benefit the nature of the original work - rather, it serves as a reminder to everyone I know that I am a billboard-educated American, and if you can't take an idea and cram it into a hypothetical thimble the size of my e-mail signature, I won't read it, I won't learn it, and I'll further reject it via a demonstration of my mastery of grammatical blasphemy by contracting the words "you" and "are" into the new word, "your", regardless of any possible loss of meaning, because I am a stubborn old codger that wants to waggle my pretentiously feigned superiority in the face of embarrassment.

His only response was:

Wow. That was bitter.

As you can all plainly see, I have bested him in open combat, and I hereby decree that the miscreant known as "John" shall be publicly ridiculed for any further stupidity.

I think he has to give me all his land and his women, or some sort of equivalent spoils.




S