Fish are not wombats. Many regard this as self-evident, if not outright self-fish. While it is undeniable that at least some fish are wombats, or would like to be, and that many wombats are neither fish nor wombats, still, the reclassification of ALL fish as wombats is a grave injustice. And don't think I'll just stand by idly blogging about it, dear reader. No, here I draw a line, here is where I say, once and for all (word by word, from the diaphragm, voice quaking): This mayonnaise shall not spoil.
Since the Magna Carta was passed at Runnymede way back in the day, fish have maintained the right to be fish without interference from, or being classified as, wombats. The principle has become all but synonymous with western democracy. Until, that is, W declared fish wombats in an obscure decree in his last days as determinator. Wombat enthusiasts who voted in large numbers for 'change' have so far been disappointed, as Obama has shown that, unlike the sea urchin, he has no spines.
But why stop at wombats? Or why stop at fish for that matter? If cheese can be put on a soda cracker, and donkeys can make hay out of the rooster's ambivalence, then why should all fish not be classed as donkeys? Who can draw the line anywhere, when elephants roam the Serengeti, clearly neither wombats nor fish, yet possessing the sleek androgyny of the dolphin, which is not a fish but dammit it oughta be.
Just checkin if yer listenin. My real point was about Tiger Woods. Man that guy can hit (the bejesus out of) a golf ball. And apparently he's quite a ladies' man. So what's all the fuss about? It's not like fish are really wombats, in any case.
OK, we'll pick it up right here, next Tuesday. And don't forget to read chapters 3 and 4 in Jurgensen, especially the example of the guy with no neck.