Unused and Probably Unusable We have a winner

According to the always invaluable and in this case downright magnificent Howard Bashman, a "reader from Philadelphia who chooses to remain anonymous" submitted the winning entry in his hilarious "identify the most dumb-ass question that could possibly be asked of U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. at his upcoming confirmation hearings" contest.

It's me! It's me! I'm the one who "chooses to remain anonymous" - but I never thought I would win! I'd have given my name as Eh Nonymous, but I didn't think I'd even be an honorable mention.
[added: Entirely Anonymous No More is Howard's update. It's true; I'm Not Entirely Anonymous, but Eh (pronounced like the letter "A") Nonymous. Thanks again, Howard.]

(click here to show the rest)

(show)

(link)

Eh Nonymous (mail) (www):

For those who want to see the entry without following the link, here it is:

I can't imagine that you haven't already (you posted at 7:45 a.m.) received the following questions, so they're not entries:
Boxers/Briefs? Paper/plastic? What's your favorite color: red or blue? Tastes great/less filling? Original intent/words of the text? FedSoc or ACS? Man-on-man or zone? Man-on-man or foundation of Western civilization? Non-precedential or citable? Split the 9th or split the tab? Tab or RC? RC or wire-controlled? First class or coach? Smoking or non? Catholic or Protestant? Catholic or conformist? Catholic or parochial (yes, they're opposites)?

My real favorite kind of dumb-ass question would hit all of the basic no-nos.

It would also draw on your special, perhaps unique method of counting, as evinced in your "20 Questions" posts.

Here is my entry:

Justice- Pardon me, Judge Robert, I mean Roberts:

If you were Chief Justice of the Supreme Court along with John Souter, Terrence Thomas, Anthony Scalia, Nino Kennedy, Ruth Day O'Ginsberg, John Paul Jones, William Brennan, and your former boss Bill Rehnquist, and a case involving abortion and capital punishment came before you on an appeal from a panel upon which you sat, and you believed you would be committing a mortal sin by hearing the case but not deciding it, and you'd gone duck-hunting with counsel for appellants but the Founders and the French would agree with the other side, would you recuse yourself if your wife had signed but not been involved with drafting of one of the amicus briefs?

Folks, it just doesn't get any more dumbass than that. The entry also (I just counted) has at least six different references to things that I know Howard finds amusing, so I knew it had better than average chances.

A brownie point (or a brownie, your choice) to the first person who correctly identifies each and every factual error in the entry itself. Not inanity, not the silliness of the question, just errors in the facts which are the predicates to the question itself. If no winner appears by next week, I'll point them out myself.

8.4.2005 1:11pm

Mike (mail) (www):

Well, given that you desire your writing to speak for itself, I'll tell you this: I knew by the style and tone of the "dumb ass question" that you were the questioner. So congratulations on having a unique voice.

8.4.2005 2:07pm

All* comments welcome. Guests must supply a name, but it can be "A Nother Nonymous Commenter" or even just a single letter. Witty names are appreciated. Obscene names, and their accompanying comments, will be deleted.

*Not all comments welcome. Flippant, facetious, fierce, or fatuous, fine. Fraudulent, felonious, fabricated, facially insufficient, and farkin' futile, fuggeddaboutit.

Unused and Probably Unusable

-- a linguistically inclined blawg

Categories

Contact

Subscribe

Archives

Blogroll

Account:
Password:

Name:
Email:
Url: