Sunday, December 04, 2005

Moral Indignation

QUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACK
QUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACK
QUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACK
QUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACK!

[Editor: Slow down, Duck. No one can understand you if you don't take a minute to breathe.]

Quackquackquackquack.

[Editor: Duck? Duck, take a deep breath. ... Count to ten ... Now what were you saying?]

Quack quack quack quACK quACK! Quack QUAck quackquack.

[Editor: I agree. You can't judge a species by the actions of a couple individuals. Which article has you so worked up?]

Quack quack quack quack. Quack quack QUACK quack QUACK.

[Editor: I see what you mean. Being called a failure by one of your favorite websites would make me upset too. It doesn't surprise me that you have an affinity for Giblets.]

Quack quackquack QuAck QUAck, quack quack QUAck quack quack quack.

[Editor: I think you're correct that Giblets didn't bother to interview any ducks. And, yes, for a website known for its hardhitting interviews, it IS disappointing.]

Moose: Moose!

Quack, quack quack quack.

[Editor: Yes, I would also be surprised if Giblets interviewed any moose either. I wouldn't take it too personally guys. Moose and ducks were also lumped with Copenhagen and penicillin. Both of those things are pretty cool.]

Quack quack quack QUAck quACK QUACK! quackquackquack.

Moose: Moose!

[Editor: Not a bad idea, Duck. Not a bad idea.]

3 Comments:

Blogger Fafnir said...

I dunno, we've been pretty duck-positive in the past.

11:08 AM  
Blogger Pudgie said...

Dear Fafnir,

I must admit that I fail to see why the post you link to is "duck positive." In fact, the post makes a point of being duck neutral. "The duck is just a duck. It means whatever a duck means" is hardly a ringing endorsement of a species. There are only two possible interpretations of the post that may be deemed "duck positive."

First, there is a sentiment of duck autonomy found in the post. "Let the duck be the duck" is succinct and clear. "Please don't write on the duck!" Is somewhat more obscure. While neither phrase really affirms the duck, it does invoke an acceptance of existence.

Second, I suppose one could read the post as advertising for ducks. Some marketing experts claim that all media references -- even negative publicity -- are good. The gross misinformation on the history of the duck is somewhat disquieting, but does paint a somewhat colorful back story to the species.

Never-the-less, the duck post was neutral with regard to the value of the duck. The chapter on failures unequivocally places Fafblog into the anti-duck camp.

11:43 AM  
Blogger Amelia said...

I think it should be pointed out that Fafblog is a group blog. Fafnir made the duck neutral post, while Giblets made the ducks are a failure post. I'm not saying Pudgie is wrong, but we shouldn't say mean things about everyone at Fafblog. I like Medium Lobster.

12:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home