Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[caroljane]

I'm kind of glad I have been lured into looking at SLOP. There's a guy over there with a wicked sense of humor that I have enjoyed reading. A dude named Darren.

I don't know about his positive views or anything else about him since I haven't really read all that much (there are limits), but he sure seems to hone in on the BS some people serve up in using Objecivist jargon to keep from thinking through issues. (Probably because it hurts. )

My favorite comment by him so far was in response to Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo's bating the religious people with a trap question of whether their consciousness survived the death of their brains.

... your consciousness survived the death of your brain. Why should others be different?

LOL...

Michael

I too am a fan of the multitalented Darren. He gave us Avatar Janet, which I enjoy imagining as the figurehead on the prow of the good ship Pomo as she sails bravely into battle.

[PDS]

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan. I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D. Ghs

Could you clarify that a bit? Thank you. Ba'al Chatzaf

I am going to hazard the guess that it was at this precise point that an ornery young atheist entered the world, who would be named George H. Smith. They say that youth is wasted on the young. Is there a similar adage for the wasting of good one liners?

You are a wise man for someone who has not yet lived a single lifetime. Yes, the modern era ended at the moment of my birth in Japan. Did it end because I was born? Or was this an instance of Jungian synchronicity? We don't know, partially because we cannot be said to know anything. But we can say, with some degree of credibility, that the modern era ended and a new era began at the moment of my birth. Thus began the post-modern era of Georgyism -- an era that, according the Burroughs/Rand theory (as interpreted by the Janetist school of deconstructionism), did not exist until I was around to perceive it. I plan to write a book on this issue. The title will be: Georgyism: The Birth of A New Era. Problems and Perspectives. I have already written rough drafts of a few chapters, but they are too polished and comprehensible, so I will need to write some pre-rough drafts by adding a lot of needless words. Ghs

I have a candidate for one of your cover blurbs, and perhaps even the Forward to this proposed door-stopper, but I fear that it may require your taking a trip to Springfield. Missouri, that is. Perhaps the expenses of said travel could be offset by a pay-per-view arrangement?

I used to do a lot of traveling -- 4 to 6 weeks every summer, for 16 years, for IHS and Cato conferences; and 10 day trip from LA to Nashville and back again every couple months, for over 6 years, for Knowledge Products.

I grew thoroughly sick of airports and busses with wings. Nowadays I travel on via wormholes. Do you know of a wormhole between Bloomington (IL) and Springfield?

Ghs

No, I don't. But if there is one place in the Universe with wormholes, it would likely be the Ozarks in Southern Missouri.

On second thought, maybe you shouldn't go there. A sojourn through the Hillbilly Ozarks and its accompanying effect on the soul may very likely shatter whatever idyllic visions you may still have about Man in his, ahem, State of Nature.

I am almost certain that Hobbes spent some time between Branson and Springfield before penning Leviation.

[Xray]

The Modern era ended around 1950.

Close, but no cigar. The modern era ended on Feb. 10, 1949. And it ended in Japan, where a child was born. Ghs

The Modern era ended around 1950. <b>around</b> is the important word here. Around is a modifier. Around means about, not exactly .

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan.

I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D.

Ghs

Hmm, -- all that looks like it's irrefutable.

You were there. Empirically, objectively and in non-simulated reality.

How's that, Janet? What is the post-modernist attack on truth rearing its objective head once again?

If at least some Rashomon-like witnesses had come to the rescue, e. g. claiming that the birth of this child never took place, or that the birth date is wrong, or that the newborn boy was not a boy, one could at least have tried to poke some postmodernist holes into the data presented ...

But kidding aside, Janet: did you really not get the joke Ghs made?

[George H. Smith]

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan. I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D. Ghs

Could you clarify that a bit? Thank you. Ba'al Chatzaf

I am going to hazard the guess that it was at this precise point that an ornery young atheist entered the world, who would be named George H. Smith. They say that youth is wasted on the young. Is there a similar adage for the wasting of good one liners?

You are a wise man for someone who has not yet lived a single lifetime. Yes, the modern era ended at the moment of my birth in Japan. Did it end because I was born? Or was this an instance of Jungian synchronicity? We don't know, partially because we cannot be said to know anything. But we can say, with some degree of credibility, that the modern era ended and a new era began at the moment of my birth. Thus began the post-modern era of Georgyism -- an era that, according the Burroughs/Rand theory (as interpreted by the Janetist school of deconstructionism), did not exist until I was around to perceive it. I plan to write a book on this issue. The title will be: Georgyism: The Birth of A New Era. Problems and Perspectives. I have already written rough drafts of a few chapters, but they are too polished and comprehensible, so I will need to write some pre-rough drafts by adding a lot of needless words. Ghs

I have a candidate for one of your cover blurbs, and perhaps even the Forward to this proposed door-stopper, but I fear that it may require your taking a trip to Springfield. Missouri, that is. Perhaps the expenses of said travel could be offset by a pay-per-view arrangement?

I used to do a lot of traveling -- 4 to 6 weeks every summer, for 16 years, for IHS and Cato conferences; and 10 day trip from LA to Nashville and back again every couple months, for over 6 years, for Knowledge Products. I grew thoroughly sick of airports and busses with wings. Nowadays I travel on via wormholes. Do you know of a wormhole between Bloomington (IL) and Springfield? Ghs

No, I don't. But if there is one place in the Universe with wormholes, it would likely be the Ozarks in Southern Missouri. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't go there. A sojourn through the Hillbilly Ozarks and its accompanying effect on the soul may very likely shatter whatever idyllic visions you may still have about Man in his, ahem, State of Nature. I am almost certain that Hobbes spent some time between Branson and Springfield before penning Leviation.

An old friend of mine, the Australian David Hart (who has worked for Liberty Fund for many years), used to describe life in the Hobbesian state of nature as "nasty, British, and short."

When in a foul mood, I sometimes think that living in Bloomington is a like living in a wormhole with no exit. It seems to consist of an endless string of churches and bars, with old ladies in cars and rednecks in pickups driving to and fro.

This is squirrel-raining season in Bloomington. Around this time of year, for some reason, dead squirrels fall out of trees like sweat off a fat marathon runner. And they always seem to end up on the sidewalk where I walk my dog six times a day.

When I first moved to Bloomington in late 1999, I tried to ignore the dead critters in my path, thinking that the city would surely dispose of them. The result of my naive hope was that I became something of an expert on the various stages of squirrel decomposition.

A few days ago, a squrrel that liked to tease my dog showed up dead on one of the usual sidewalk spots. Jazz had never seen a dead animal before, and his first experience with death freaked him out. I therefore placed the deceased in a large garbage bag-coffin. The garbage truck-hearse picked him up this morning. R.I.P.

Ghs

[Xray]

I'm kind of glad I have been lured into looking at SLOP. There's a guy over there with a wicked sense of humor that I have enjoyed reading. A dude named Darren.

I don't know about his positive views or anything else about him since I haven't really read all that much (there are limits), but he sure seems to hone in on the BS some people serve up in using Objecivist jargon to keep from thinking through issues. (Probably because it hurts. )

My favorite comment by him so far was in response to Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo's bating the religious people with a trap question of whether their consciousness survived the death of their brains.

... your consciousness survived the death of your brain. Why should others be different?

LOL...

Michael

I too am a fan of the multitalented Darren. He gave us Avatar Janet, which I enjoy imagining as the figurehead on the prow of the good ship Pomo as it sails bravely into battle.

"Good ship Pomo" - I like that!

As for Darren - this is a truly brilliant debater, always ready to defeat his opponents using their own weapons against them.

[Xray]

For some reason x-ray I don't exactly see you this way. You are quite as I was in the early 60's when I bought the whole package of objectivism, hook, line and sinker.

Wrong premise on your part, Janet: I have never been an Objectivst. Nor have I ever adhered to any philosophy hook line and sinker.

Instead I prefer to pick and choose from different philosophies and patchwork it together individually.

[Selene]

And they always seem to end up on the sidewalk where I walk my dog six times a day.

Damn...they have sidewalks in Bloomington!

Who would have thunk!

[George H. Smith]

And they always seem to end up on the sidewalk where I walk my dog six times a day.

Damn...they have sidewalks in Bloomington!

Who would have thunk!

Yes, they have sidewalks in Bloomington. They also have many large trees with roots that push the sidewalks up, thereby enabling an abundant plant life to flourish in the cracks.

Bloomington also has something called the NO LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER. I know this because I have walked by the building thousands of times, and by a large sign that reads: NO LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER PARKING. At least the city planners were considerate enough to provide parking for people who want, or need, to visit the NO LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Bloomington also has something called the NO LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER. I know this because I have walked by the building thousands of times, and by a large sign that reads: NO LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER PARKING. At least the city planners were considerate enough to provide parking for people who want, or need, to visit the NO LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER.

Ghs

I think someone finally noticed the peculiar wording of the sign. I say this because a few years ago NO was changed to NO.

Whoever added the heavier emphasis and prominent underscoring probably wanted to separate and distinguish the NO from LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER. Or perhaps they wanted to emphasize that fact that you should definitely not park here, if you expect law and justice.

I thought about suggesting a more satisfactory rewrite for the sign, namely: NO PARKING FOR THE LAW AND/OR JUSTICE CENTER -- but I decided against it.

What can I say? This is the way my mind works. When you live in Bloomington, you have to provide your own entertainment.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan.

I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D.

Ghs

Could you clarify that a bit? Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am going to hazard the guess that it was at this precise point that an ornery young atheist entered the world, who would be named George H. Smith.

They say that youth is wasted on the young. Is there a similar adage for the wasting of good one liners?

You are a wise man for someone who has not yet lived a single lifetime.

Yes, the modern era ended at the moment of my birth in Japan.

No intellectual historian worth his salt is going to buy into this theory until you turn over your long-form birth certificate. In one of Carl Bugenhagen’s talks on YouTube he presents unfalsifiable evidence that you were in fact born to a jackal at 6 am on June the 6th, in Rome I think. Fear only the Daggers of Megiddo!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XY3GcxY2fA&feature=related

Explains your affinity for dogs…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPEsOg3xyGE&feature=related

[caroljane]

Michael, I said stated .aim.

Carol,

Yes you did and I should have noticed.

Anyway, she stated that was her aim?

Where?

If she did state that was her one aim, I missed it. (Might be because of that annoying sucking sound George mentioned on SLOP. )

Michael

I said "one aim" -- should have said, one of her aims. I am looking for that one. So far I have only found her stated aim, above on this thread, to place Rand in the layers of postmodern thinking, and her various attempts to stuff Rand in there, and yak, yak about things she is not here for, and are irrelevant, or not important or dogs in which she has no fight , or she is not interested or indifferent to, and this is only one thread and I got a bad headache already.

Tonstant Weader did not fwow up but she had to take four Adamsprins.

Well, I found that one aim and I am going to give up, I have just found more and various things she is not here to do, such as "I am not here to entertain and amuse you". (she's wrong there)

I will therefore (assuming her reasons to be here were benevolent) by the process of elimination conclude that her aim was to enlighten.

I've said it before (as so did Mr Bennet), what are we for, but to make sport of our neighbours and be made sport of in our turn?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

Enlighten us?

Dayaamm!

We need another preacher like a hole in the head.

Preachers should learn that OL is not good flock material for them. Nor are OL members (in general).

But the problem with preachers is that they never learn anything and they feel they don't have to learn. They claim they know it all already.

To be honest, I can't stand preachers.

In a course I was listening to recently by Joel Roberts on public presentation (and how to be a great radio guest), he made a distinction that I found extremely enlightening, if you want to talk about enlightenment.

He was discussing how to provoke controversy. He said the guru posture was the absolute best for pissing people off. But to touch a person's heart and get them with you (and I add here, to help them think for themselves), a much better posture is to be a witness.

He actually preferred the guru posture if you are promoting a book or something because train-wrecks give you more audience. Not good quality audience, nor long-lasting, but the radio stations have their stats to check. A witness gives you a much higher quality and more loyal audience, albeit a smaller one.

Look at how George presents his knowledge for a really good example of how to do it right. (I learn a lot from him.) He's a witness to what he has studied. That is, unless he's having fun with fools (to use his expression for fools ).

He's not the know-it-all who's sole mission in life is to teach humanity how to live and think and follow him.

Back to the preachers... I have a great idea of how to correctly respond to them.

I got this idea from Christianity.

Crucifixion.

Michael

[caroljane]

For some reason x-ray I don't exactly see you this way. You are quite as I was in the early 60's when I bought the whole package of objectivism, hook, line and sinker.

Wrong premise on your part, Janet: I have never been an Objectivst. Nor have I ever adhered to any philosophy hook line and sinker.

Instead I prefer to pick and choose from different philosophies and patchwork it together individually.

Maybe Janet assumed that regulars on a Rand-based site would all be Objectivists. She seemed to think I was one, and was also under the misapprehension that I am a "serious adult."

[seymourblogger]

For some reason x-ray I don't exactly see you this way. You are quite as I was in the early 60's when I bought the whole package of objectivism, hook, line and sinker.

Wrong premise on your part, Janet: I have never been an Objectivst. Nor have I ever adhered to any philosophy hook line and sinker.

Instead I prefer to pick and choose from different philosophies and patchwork it together individually.

Maybe Janet assumed that regulars on a Rand-based site would all be Objectivists. She seemed to think I was one, and was also under the misapprehension that I am a "serious adult."

Well if you aren't a serious adult why won't you play with me?

[caroljane]

For some reason x-ray I don't exactly see you this way. You are quite as I was in the early 60's when I bought the whole package of objectivism, hook, line and sinker.

Wrong premise on your part, Janet: I have never been an Objectivst. Nor have I ever adhered to any philosophy hook line and sinker.

Instead I prefer to pick and choose from different philosophies and patchwork it together individually.

Maybe Janet assumed that regulars on a Rand-based site would all be Objectivists. She seemed to think I was one, and was also under the misapprehension that I am a "serious adult."

Well if you aren't a serious adult why won't you play with me?

Because you don't play nice.

[seymourblogger]

For some reason x-ray I don't exactly see you this way. You are quite as I was in the early 60's when I bought the whole package of objectivism, hook, line and sinker.

Wrong premise on your part, Janet: I have never been an Objectivst. Nor have I ever adhered to any philosophy hook line and sinker.

Instead I prefer to pick and choose from different philosophies and patchwork it together individually.

Maybe Janet assumed that regulars on a Rand-based site would all be Objectivists. She seemed to think I was one, and was also under the misapprehension that I am a "serious adult."

Well if you aren't a serious adult why won't you play with me?

Because you don't play nice.

They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing that I see the game. - Knots - R. D. Laing

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm kind of glad I have been lured into looking at SLOP. There's a guy over there with a wicked sense of humor that I have enjoyed reading. A dude named Darren.

I don't know about his positive views or anything else about him since I haven't really read all that much (there are limits), but he sure seems to hone in on the BS some people serve up in using Objecivist jargon to keep from thinking through issues. (Probably because it hurts. )

My favorite comment by him so far was in response to Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo's bating the religious people with a trap question of whether their consciousness survived the death of their brains.

... your consciousness survived the death of your brain. Why should others be different?

LOL...

Michael

I too am a fan of the multitalented Darren. He gave us Avatar Janet, which I enjoy imagining as the figurehead on the prow of the good ship Pomo as it sails bravely into battle.

"Good ship Pomo" - I like that!  

As for Darren - this is a truly brilliant debater, always ready to defeat his opponents using their own weapons against them.

Perigo claims that the line is one Darren borrowed from him:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8943#comment-106102

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8943#comment-106089

I think Darren is the same poster who posted here for awhile uder the screen name AristotlesAdvance arguing for Intelligent Design (and soon being limited to 5 posts a day). The same poster was posting on SOLO at that time using the same screen name. Also, I think he used the name "Claude Shannon" earlier on RoR, where, IIRC, he was eventually restricted to the "Dissent" forum. When he started using the name (I suppose it's his real name) Darren on SOLO, he provoked a long-running argument about ID. Later he branched into primarily talking about other topics (on which sometimes he has a point).

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well, there goes Darren....

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8943#comment-106133

Blavatsky

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2012-02-24 07:56.

I asked for proof of a positive: prove that you are the AUTHOR of that line.

I wrote it. What more do you want? You nicked it, without attribution.

Janet thinks you're funny. She doesn't seem to realise your "humour" is stolen. It's not important ... but it's significant in reinforcing your ignobleness.

And it has persuaded me to eject you. Your bad faith surpasses even Baade's—and there is a stricture in the guidelines about good faith.

I don't suppose you'll miss us, 'cos you have all those seances to fill your days. 'Bye!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

If he's the same, that can't be good. I just looked up his past posts to try to remember why I restricted him. They followed a pattern (not an exact quote, but a conceptual outline):

blah blah blah... you Objectivists suck... blah blah blah... you Objectivists suck... blah blah blah... you Objectivists suck...blah blah blah... you Objectivists suck...

Sometimes he would vary it:

blah blah blah... the problem is you Objectivists suck...

That got tiresome. And some of the posts were really long.

The thing is, I still don't remember them all that well, even after rereading a few (re-skimming is more accurate). From what I can tell this go around, it seems like he was only interested in preaching his theory and showing how all who did not agree, especially Objectivists, were fools.

He still made a good quip, though.

That Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo would get all wound up over this dude "plagiarizing" a quip is a hoot. Anyway, for a quip to come off as funny, you need pithiness, positioning and timing, all three of which Perigo's version lacked and Darren's version had.

Frankly, Perigo's version came off as his standard brand of snark. It was wordy and clunky, couched in parenthese as a put-down to a trap question and had absolutely no set-up. Behold the masterwork that was allegedly plagiarized (from here):

"And, one more time, Baade: do you believe your consciousness will survive the death of your brain (I confess to finding the evidence that this has already occurred quite strong)?"

From what I have read recently, his style hasn't changed from when I used to read him. He always repeats some stale quip formulas over and over, long after they have lost their punch. He's better at coining colorful expressions.

Notice that Darren's version came at the end of a post, in answer to the trap question. A statement of fact (followed by a rhetorical question), not prefaced by the snooty line, "I confess to finding...".

Snoot ain't funny. It's just snoot. It even waters down the impact of what should be funny. (Maybe a little snoot is funny, but nonstop snoot gets old pretty fast.)

Dayaamm!

I'm writing way too much about this all of a sudden. I'm just thinking out loud because I am starting to study humor writing and this looked like a good example to make a mini-case study. Tangential attention hijack.

As a final thought, this Darren guy got really nasty in the sequence leading to the ban post. He pushed buttons like homosexual, Rand sucks, drinking and so on.

That's a shame because it took away from the humor of a really good quip. To paraphrase myself, nastiness ain't funny. It's just nastiness. It even waters down the impact of what should be funny. (Maybe a little nastiness is funny, but nonstop nastiness gets old pretty fast.)

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I think Darren is the same poster who posted here for awhile uder the screen name AristotlesAdvance arguing for Intelligent Design (and soon being limited to 5 posts a day).

I remember that one. Tedious + obnoxious. Hope he’s not coming back!

[Xray]

I have never characterized Rand per se as being a post modern writer. She wrote in the 1940's and 1950's. The Modern era ended around 1950.

So we both agree that Rand is no post modern writer.

This leaves us to examine another statement you made:

I am reading Rand as a post modern philosopher.

Rand - a "post modern philosopher"?

Post modern philosophy is:

http://en.wikipedia....dern_philosophy

"usually associated with the following philosophical trends (as defined by Stephen Hicks): nihilism and relativism, neo-marxism, neo-pragmatism and neo-existentialism."

As un-Randian is as it can get.

What I have said explicitly is that her fiction is a forerunner of post modern thinking, and I detest that label as much as any of you, but I am using it as a ready-made, for want of something better that would not take a paragraph to say.

I can understand your reluctance to apply those generalizing labels, but I can't see a smidgen of 'post modern' thought in Rand's philosophy.

What e. g. we perceive as reality in no way questioned a to its 'reliablilty'

The same goes for "truth". I can vividly imagine how Rand would have reacted to statements like "In fact there is no truth".

Can't you too imagine her reaction to that?

Fictional artists are often clairvoyant about the future. Do you dispute Rand's ability in this?

In large parts, yes.

For humanity is moving in a different direction than she predicted.

[seymourblogger]

I think Darren is the same poster who posted here for awhile uder the screen name AristotlesAdvance arguing for Intelligent Design (and soon being limited to 5 posts a day).

I remember that one. Tedious + obnoxious. Hope he’s not coming back!

Darren knows better than to argue for Intelligent Design, so it could not be darren you are theorizing about.

[seymourblogger]

I have never characterized Rand per se as being a post modern writer. She wrote in the 1940's and 1950's. The Modern era ended around 1950.

So we both agree that Rand is no post modern writer. This leaves us to examine another statement you made:

I am reading Rand as a post modern philosopher.

Rand - a "post modern philosopher"? Post modern philosophy is:

http://en.wikipedia....dern_philosophy "usually associated with the following philosophical trends (as defined by Stephen Hicks): nihilism and relativism, neo-marxism, neo-pragmatism and neo-existentialism."

As un-Randian is as it can get.

What I have said explicitly is that her fiction is a forerunner of post modern thinking, and I detest that label as much as any of you, but I am using it as a ready-made, for want of something better that would not take a paragraph to say.

I can understand your reluctance to apply those generalizing labels, but I can't see a smidgen of 'post modern' thought in Rand's philosophy. What e. g. we perceive as reality in no way questioned a to its 'reliablilty' The same goes for "truth". I can vividly imagine how Rand would have reacted to statements like "In fact there is no truth". Can't you too imagine her reaction to that?

Fictional artists are often clairvoyant about the future. Do you dispute Rand's ability in this?

In large parts, yes. For humanity is moving in a different direction than she predicted.

Please do not give me a wiki definition like that. Irrelevant.

The post modern thought in Rand's writing comes from her" sleeping in bed" with Nietzsche. Nietzsche bleeds through her linguistically. The way a mother's language bleeds through her child. An invisible transfusion. Nietzsche is the philosopher of our world now as Hegel has been for the last 300 years or so. I said or so George. And no I did not get his irony because he is so hostile all the time to me I thought he meant it as another nasty comment. As it was it was just sadistically teasing or teasingly sadistic.

In relation to Nietzsche he makes her a sort of post modern disciple of his, although he repudiated disciples. I doubt that you can see Nietzsche's post modern thought in Rand. Try harder though.

Sure I can imagine her reaction to "there is no truth. So what."

Humanity is not moving in a different direction. It is jumping from Even to Event.

If you would reply to me at SOLO it would be easier as this auto post thing is glitchy. But do as you wish.

[caroljane]

I see Darren has got the heave from Solo. I tried to look at his profile there to see if he is the same as the exOL poster above mentioned, but you can't click on him, it is just "darren not verified". Has he been nonpersonned? At least over here the grisly corpses remain on display as evidence.

[caroljane]

He still made a good quip, though.

That Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo would get all wound up over this dude "plagiarizing" a quip is a hoot. Anyway, for a quip to come off as funny, you need pithiness, positioning and timing, all three of which Perigo's version lacked and Darren's version had.

Frankly, Perigo's version came off as his standard brand of snark. It was wordy and clunky, couched in parenthese as a put-down to a trap question and had absolutely no set-up. Behold the masterwork that was allegedly plagiarized (from here):

Michael and

Yes, he made the quip much better than LP did, that must have been the last straw for the Principal of the Perigo School of Wit and Morality. As everyone knows, comics never steal jokes, because the Good always drives out the Evil, as the Rational drives out the Uppity.