Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Letters to the Editor

The latest Gilbert magazine has a very funny Letter to the Editor, in the form of a poem, wondering what happened to the writer's subscription.

Equally funny is Dale Ahlquist's response, also in poetry format, stating the human error which caused the mysterious "losing" of the aforementioned subscription.

The other letters were interesting, too. Letters & Lunacy is always one of my favorite things to read. I always hope that The Flying Stars column will have caused some flurry of controversial letters, and the sparks will be flying, with me rebutting their awful line of reasoning, and then them returning to the scene of the crime and tearing my argument apart word for word, and then me coming back with a clever retort or two.

But somehow, that has never happened. Yet.


  1. I believe it is the policy of this magazine not to permit its writers to rebut letters to the editors that have been critical of their columns. (The editor corrects factual errors and answers questions of fact, but does not challenge opinion.) The policy may have changed, but I find no evidence of such a change in my reading of Lunacy and Letters.
    ~ Gramps

  2. Gramps,
    I'm sure you are right (very sure). This is just the ravings of a lunatic late at night, sleep deprived, overstimulated by having had to homeschool two children in fields such as robotics and grammar; fantasizing after reading stuff in other magazines, with visions of fame and fortune in my head. Just the usual for me on a Wednesday night, I guess. ;-)

  3. blog comments would be a good place for an argument, eh? maybe we could starting picking on you here and your dream could come true. with you winning in the end, of course!

  4. John is right, Nancy. Also, if readers aren't going to bother writing when we editorialize against a constitutional amendment banning homosexial "marriage," -- we got not a single response on that editorial -- then your excellent columns aren't going to stir them to write either.

    Also, it's "Lunacy & Letters." You got it backward in your post. :)

  5. Joe: that's why I run this blog. Argue away.

    Sean: I knew that. I mixed it up for fun.

    No comments on the homosexual marriage thing, eh? What about Harry Potter? That usually starts a fight.

  6. We could start a new thread on politics....what would Chesterton think of Sarah Palin, for example?

  7. "What would Chesterton think of Sarah Palin?"

    Nancy, someone has already pondered that thought here:

  8. Sean: it's "Lunacy & Letters." You got it backward in your post.
    Nancy: I knew that. I mixed it up for fun.

    I call Zoolander!

    Brint: Or the way Hansel combs his hair?
    Meekus: Or like, doesn't, it's like, ex-squeeze me, but have you ever heard of styling gel?
    Brint: I'm sure Hansel's heard of styling gel, he's a male model.
    Meekus: Uh, earth to Brint, I was making a joke.
    Brint: Uh, Earth to Meekus, duh, okay I knew that!
    Meekus: Uh earth to Brint, I'm not so sure you did cuz you were all 'well I'm sure he's heard of styling gel' like you *didn’t* know it was a joke!
    Brint: I knew it was a joke Meekus, I just didn't get it right away!
    Meekus: Earth to Brint...
    Derek Zoolander: Would you guys stop it already?

  9. What? Oh, OK< I guess it IS Chestertonian: so whenever somebody posts something that nobody but he could understand, I shall reply with something which I could not even understand myself! To wit:

    You read all that up in Pinckwerts; the notion that involution functioned eugenically was exposed long ago by Glumpe.

    As Bunchoosa Blutterspangle lingered in the lovely garden a voice said 'Bunchi' behind her, in tones that recalled the old glad days at the Quoodlesnakes'. It was, it was indeed the deep, melodious voice of Splitcat Chintzibobs.

    I am sorry
    if you have
    a green pain
    gnawing your brain away.
    I suppose
    quite a lot of it is
    gnawed away
    by this time.


Join our FaceBook fan page today!