Thursday, January 18, 2007

Dreher Syndrome.

The comic book series Sleeper -- now available in trade paperback form, complete in four volumes -- presents the interesting protagonist of Carver Holden, a sleeper spy embedded in the criminal organization of a villainous mastermind. Trapped because the only agent who knows his real purpose is in a coma, Holden has superpowers that are appropriate for the dark universe of WildStorm comics:
Holden's superpowers are caused by an alien artifact that merged with his nervous system. Whenever he experiences physical trauma, he feels no pain and instead stores the pain, which he can then direct via touch into someone else. Enough pain would kill a person without any trace, making Carver an ideal assassin for [supervillain] Tao's purposes. Holden had little control over his power and would cause pain to anybody who touched him. Another downside was that he was also incapable of feeling anything else, though during sex a combination of pain and pleasure could make him feel pleasure. The artifact made his thoughts unreadable to all telepaths and protected him against many mental attacks, though not all. The artifact also quickly repaired all damage done to his body.

The important thing is that his inability to feel pain is coupled with enhanced healing powers: without that, immunity to pain would be more of a curse than it was. Pain is a good thing in that it causes the body to pull away from a hot stove to limit the damage done.

Physical pain keeps a person from harming itself.

Similarly, cognitive dissonance keeps a person from looking like a fool for saying wildly inconsistent things.

I've never really wondered what a person would act like freed from those particular constraints, but I think I've seen it in action. So far as I can tell, Rod Dreher is incapable of experiencing cognitive dissonance.

It's probably some heretofore unknown psychological affliction. Since Rod may be the first to be diagnosed, I propose that we call it "Dreher Syndrome."

There's a good bit to discuss over Rod's NPR commentary and other related comments, but so much of it boils down to the hypocrisy and inconsistency that would result in cognitive dissonance in a physiologically healthy human being:
Reaganism. Insofar as the term is ideological and not merely an indication of finding appealing a particular political figure, Rod Dreher is not and probably has never been a stalwart Reaganite. Beyond his youthful dalliance with campaigning for Mondale, Rod currently vilifies those fiscal conservatives who defend the free market; and anyone who lauds Carter's "malaise" speech and loathes the values and choices of middle-class America can hardly be said to share Reagan's optimism for us. That doesn't stop him from claiming the mantle of, not just conservatism, but the much more specific Reaganism.

The Left. Despite his protestations, Rod's leaning ever closer to joining the left, as he often finds it quite easy to join their ranks de facto if not yet de jure. Even though he eschews the anti-war left, he joins them in their hyperbolic ranting about Bush and Iraq. Even though he says this country doesn't need Ted Kennedy's leadership on foreign policy, he did support the Dems in November. (Just what did he think would happen? Kennedy wouldn't have a leadership position in a Dem-controlled Senate?) And though he says his conservatism is "primarily social/cultural/religious", he had the gall to redefine what it means to be pro-life to support the pro-abortion Jim Webb because of his opposition to our continued presence in Iraq.

To put the above another way, Rod implies that he supports a platform that is populist, anti-war, and socially conservative. It seems to me that most who support the free market do so because it is moral, efficient, or both; they don't appeal to its popularity because they don't have to, so I tend to doubt that any form of populism is anything more or other than socialism in disguise. Given Rod's sneering over fiscal conservatives, I doubt seriously that his populism is the exception. So: Rod is an anti-war socialist who's also socially conservative, but his support for Jim Webb tells you exactly which one of those beliefs is the most expendable.

The new war. When it comes to the war against jihad -- the war against Islamic fascism, World War IV as Norman Podhoretz called it -- Rod is a hawk in theory, but a dove in reality. That's the only way he can, on a Sunday, admit that the war will take generations and advocate a "muscular" foreign policy, only to nearly weep about the trauma of war, of killing and being killed, the very next day. The latter post would be relevant during any war, and I suspect he will continue to invoke precisely that emotionalism during engagements he opposes, to hell with all that talk about strength.

There's substance to be argued, too. It could be that our difficulties in Iraq were unavoidable and simply need to be endured in order to win, or it could be that, rather than vindicate Pat Buchanan, they vindicate Reaganism in that the "small-footprint" approach displayed too little resolve rather than arrogance and hubris. But these points are hardly worth making when Dreher Syndrome is on such full display.

And I haven't even touched the hypocrisy outside the serious discussion of issues. Rod's behavior to those who disagree with him -- us, certainly, but also other rank-and-file conservatives and even Rod's fellow professional writers -- clearly demonstrates that he is in no position whatsoever to criticize Bush for having no room for disagreement. And someone should tell Rod that he hasn't yet matured from his days as a movie reviewer, that he hasn't yet truly put aside "callow cruelty, of which there is too much in the world."

(Ask Diane or Kathleen.)

Even though I suspect that this acute case of Dreher Syndrome is the result, not of genes or a chemical imbalance, but of the vice of vanity, Rod still deserves our pity and compassion to the extent it can be given.

But he is not to be taken seriously as a writer.

His position on Iraq does not preclude the possibility that there are intellectually compelling arguments for an immediate withdrawal (though I'm skeptical), just as his young faith as a Christian does not preclude the validity of Christianity's truth claims. There's room at the table for discussions about foreign policy, the size and scope of government, theology: all sorts of subjects.

It's just that his Dreher Syndrome consistently disqualifies Rod from the table.

That may be my last word for a while as I return to more important things in my own life, but I may return to this particular arena, not because the fights are enlightening, edifying, or even interesting, but because somebody ought to respond to Rod's inconsistent and over-emotional gibberish.

36 Comments:

Blogger Bubba said...

In the comment thread to his post about how Bush can't stand criticism, I noted that Dreher's not one to talk, and I wasn't the only one to make that observation.

Some comments are still there, but guess which ones have disappeared?

If this was the deliberate suppression of a dissenting point of view -- and it's hard to believe it was a glitch or an accident -- Rod did the following:

1) Bitched about Bush's isolating himself from criticism.

2) Noticed that others leveled the same accusation back at him.

3) Had those comments deleted from his blog.

One thing that Michael Mann emphasized in his commentary for the film Heat is that his protagonist -- Detective Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino) -- is supremely self-aware.

At the other end of that spectrum is Our Working Boy. How frigging dense do you have to be to censor out the complaint that you don't react well to criticism?

5:52 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Bubba, you had me laughing out loud.

Please see Rod's latest post this a.m. (Friday).

He must have had his wrist slapped by BeliefNet, too. But notice how he makes only the slightest passing reference to his own responsibility to be civil. The rest of the post is all about the comboxers. Nice.

But I suppose it's a step in the right direction. We shall see how it plays out.

God bless,

Diane

5:30 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

is it that dreher cannot experience cognitive dissonance because he is in *constant state* of cognitive dissonance, and therefore cannot discern for himself what it is since he is always in it? just like a for a person with tinnitis doesn't know what true silence is, because for him "silence" always includes the ringing in his ears.

this is sooo deep, man.

6:45 AM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Diane: "He must have had his wrist slapped by BeliefNet, too. But notice how he makes only the slightest passing reference to his own responsibility to be civil. The rest of the post is all about the comboxers. Nice.

But I suppose it's a step in the right direction. We shall see how it plays out."


Meanwhile, hide the sledgehammers and crowbars.

Seriously, can there be any meaningful debate in the comboxes at a blog like Rod's? His meta-narrative is that he deletes comments and has commenters' hands slapped by bnet because they are being harsh and slanderous when it's obvious that the real reason is that he has no answer for the points raised. E.g., who can deny that Rod's religion writing tends to focus on only one thing in his so-called coverage of Catholicism?

I'm starting to think that maybe this blog should morph into something like Coalition for Fog to point out his countless distortions and numerous inconsistencies since it is seemingly impossible to keep him honest.

7:20 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

It's UNreal over there.

Love this Rod-Quote re the rationale for BeliefNet Rules:

That is, so people can feel free to post in the comboxes without having to worry about being personally attacked...

Does he really not see the irony here? Does he think it was some other Rod Dreher who called certain individuals "gollum," "witch queen," "messed up," "jerk," Prufock," "pathetic," and on and on and on? (I bet I could dig up 100 instances without even trying.)

HE is the #1 reason why one fears to post in the comboxes. HIS insults, his personal attacks, his penchant for nasty name-calling.

Does Rod have ANY self-awareness AT ALL????

He deflects everything outwward. It's never his fault. It's always his Bad Evil Comboxers or that Bad Evil Catholic Church or whatever.

Oh wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see airsels as ithers see us.

Amen!

8:16 AM  
Blogger Bubba said...

"I'm starting to think that maybe this blog should morph into something like Coalition for Fog to point out his countless distortions and numerous inconsistencies since it is seemingly impossible to keep him honest."

Very cool idea.

8:19 AM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Diane, like the Robert Burns. Reminds me of a reference to "To a mouse" by blogger pgepps on a very early post.

I looked at that new "Disagreeing agreeably" post and the comments; to me it's a laughable tangle of words that don't mean anything.

The way I've always seen it is that if someone comes over to a blog and shoots off a truly personal attack at me, for example, "Pauli is a poopy-head and his kids are ugly like he is," the best thing I could do toward discrediting him/her is to let the insult sit there like a steaming pile of crap, a testament to the low intellect of the attacker.

But if, on the other hand, I were to hastily delete it because I'm afraid that Kathleen, Bubba, Cube or Diane might think I actually am a poopy-head after reading the comment, then I think I'm safe in saying that my intelligence would deserve to be maligned even further and quite justly.

9:20 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

Heh--I have been "banned by webmaster." All of my and Kathleen posts have been deleted. Apparently Rod is completely unaware that it is easy as pie to override such bans. Oh well....

He really, truly, truly does not get it. He will not take the slightest responsibility for his vicious name-calling. He cannot take the slightest criticism--although he can dish it out by the bucket-full.

I have never encountered anything like this in cyberspace--leastwise in allegedly Christian cyberspace. Never.

Think I'll join Franklin Evans' Conflict Resolution Board. There's got to be a voice for the Non-Rod-Sycophants. The Guy with the Power should not get away with bloody murder.

9:45 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:53 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

I've just written Franklin Evans, offering to compile documentastion of all the insults Rod has lobbed at us over the past few years at his board. Complete with links. (Better get 'em soon bwefore Rod deletes 'em--LOL!) I will provide the same documentation to the powers that be at BeliefNet.

We shall see what happens.

BTW--his action came right after I implored him to treat people like human beings, reminding him that name-calling hurts real, live people. He can't handle **that**? Then what was that whole stupid post about, then?

10:08 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

sorry for typos--typing fast because I've gotta run to a meeting

10:08 AM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Wow. This place is jumpin' all of a sudden.

For someone who wrote, in his "magnum opus" entitled "Orthodoxy and me":

Basically, though -- and this is as blunt as I can be -- I'm in a church where I can trust the spiritual headship of the clergy, and where most people want to know more about the faith, and how we can conform our lives to it, rather than wanting to run away from it or hide it so nobody has to be offended.(emphasis added by me)

to now remind us of BeliefNetLaw:

Courtesy and Respect: You agree that you will be courteous to every Beliefnet member, even those whose beliefs you think are false or objectionable. When debating, express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally. You agree not to make negative personal remarks about other Beliefnet members...

is utterly pathetic.

I have missed less-than-nothing by not going over there for the last months.

And I thought he was trying to be more masculine. Guess not -- now he runs to Momma when he gets slapped, by a couple of girls no less. ;-)

Keep up the good work, y'all.

10:43 AM  
Blogger Pauli said...

I think it was the illustrious Mr. Shea who used the Witch Queen moniker, but maybe Dreher used it also. I wouldn't put any name-calling past the man who called G. K. Chesterton "some damn fool".

10:46 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

dreher echoed shea at some point, i think multiple times. much of it was deleted *of course*.

in a way, it's an interesting quandary we are in. of course beliefnet is *technically* right that we are addressing dreher personally. but that is because dreher takes everything personally, distorts it outrageously, and then repackages it as an ostensibly "hard-hitting" blog post that is topical for the news of the day. ( with his cute little disclaimers that he always adds to make himself sound sane and stable.) if we point out dreher's distortions, we are pointing his (considerable and obvious) foibles and biases, and that's "not allowed" by beliefnet because then it's getting "personal".

similarly, it's difficult to call someone a nazi without getting a lot of flack -- even if he *really is* a nazi.

hence the imrpimatur of beliefnet (such as it is -- i think beliefnot is a complete joke) is the perfect smokescreen for rod to indulge his foulest, craziest obsessions. so is the predictable but discouraging credulity of his more harmless and bland commenters. you see, it's not christian to call someone a nazi, even if he really is one.

of course, the sweetest revenge is refraining from commenting over there, because without us the blog is dead boring. we all know dreher reads *everything* over here. clearly we've hit some nerves. that is why we rattle him to the degree we do.

11:02 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

Kathleen, you speak much wisdom. Leave the Rod-Blog to BibleBeliever. That should raise the tone!

LOL--does Rod really read this blog, do you think? That may explain his blind rage at little ole you and me. :)

11:27 AM  
Blogger Bubba said...

I want to believe Rod's sincere both in his admission for some culpability in the vitriol at his blog and in his desire to improve the tone there. Thing is, even if it's sincere now, there's no reason to think it will permanently guide his behavior.

And he's positioning himself to dismiss any attempt to remind him of hypocrisy as a personal attack that dredges up old issues.

He wants to be free to flip-flop at a frenetic pace without any consequences.

11:35 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

bubba, "sincere" is derived from the latin (i guess)phrase "without wax". dreher is comparable to a man *made of* wax trying to be "sincere", or without wax. it's qualitatively impossible for him to be sincere.

11:45 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

in case you doubt rod reads this blog:

"I don't engage you because of the spirit in which you write, both here and at your blog."

addressed to bubba, 240pm today

11:49 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

Rod's vindictive removal of our posts and complaints to BeliefNet utterly undercut any claim to sincerity.

BeliefNet told me my posts were "disruptive" (a subjective marshmallowy term if there ever was one). I asked how objecting to being called a pig was disruptive. Isn't it more disruptive to call people pigs?

I intend to seek redress. I understand there is a Conflict Resolution Board, and I'm gonna go there. Rod cannot be permitted to behave like a little tinpot dictator.

Moreover--why on earth is BeliefNwet allowing him to call people these vicious names? Why is BeliefNet not taking some sort of action versus Rod? Yeah, he's one of their bloggers, but so what? Does that mean he's above the law?

Sorry, Bubba. I don't buy the sincerity thing. Actions speak louder than words, and Rod's actions have been petty and despicable.

11:53 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

And, on that note, Kathleen, I'm gonna get under the headphones and listen to your Pomerium CD while I do my afternoon's copyediting. Nothing like Renaissance polyphony to soothe away the effects of Rod-Venom. :)

12:03 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

To Kathleen's point, you can either take everything personally or barely anything personally. If someone says "We should kill Jews," and I say "You're a NAZI!" all the pointy-heads could have a long discussion about technical meanings and the history of fascism, etc., etc., and conclude in the end that mine was a personal attack and as such it was way out of line. They'd inform me that I should have said "I think this killing of Jews which you propose is a bad idea because it's homicidal and, you know, genocidal and all that."

I probably wouldn't say either, opting for the funnier line "Make sure you stretch the ol' ham-strings before you goose-step to whole way down to the unemployement office, lads, or you'll really be feeling it later."

12:08 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Kathleen--just saw Franklin Evans' post about responding in kind. How on earth have you responded in kind? Have you ever called Rod "satan" or "gollum"? If so, I've missed it.

And why is there no similar knuckle-rap for Rod, even though he is the WORST offender in the vicious-name-calling department, bar none?

The injustice is unbelievable.

I seriously believe BeliefNet should be exposed for anti-Catholic bigotry.

12:19 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

how long before some helplessly bland soul accuses of "comparing rod to a nazi?!"

12:20 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Here's whhat I wrote to BeliefNet:

Over the past few months, Rod Dreher has publicly
called me and some of my fellow Catholics the
following: "jerk," "loser," "pig," "messed up,"
"gollum," "hothead," "knothead," "pathetic little
Prufock," and on and on. This is slander (perhaps even
legally actionable). And BdeliefNet has done NOTHING
to rein it in.

Moreover, I can document every instance of Mr.
Dreher's name-calling--including some that slip my
mind at the moment. He is, as I mentioned before, the
Name-Calling King. I have never called him names at
that board. I have been on the receiving end. How does
that qualify as disruption? If I object to being
called a pig, that makes me disruptive?

This morning I reminded Rod that those he insults are
human beings, and that name-calling hurts. Can you
kindly explain to me how this is disruptive?

Rod Dreher is an embarrassment to BeliefNet. He aims
at silencing his critics any way he can--either by
vicious name-calling or by deleting posts or by
complaining to BeliefNet. Apparently, he has the clout
to do this. But the effect is to render BeliefNet
ridiculous...and possibly even liable. It also
transforms BeliefNet--and in particular Crunchy
Cons--into Anti-Catholicism Central, where the insane
rants of BibleBeliever are allowed while the protests
of Catholics are silenced. I wonder how the blog
world at large would react to the news that loyal
Catholics (as opposed to Rod's sycophantic acolytes)
are not welcome at BeliefNet sites?

12:43 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

OK, here (for Rod's edification--LOL!) is what I wrote to Franklin Evans after he took Kathleen to task for having the noive to get offended at the RodBlog's constant anti-Catholic rants:

Come on, Franklin. That blog is turning into Anti-Catholicism Central. (Have you read BibleBeliever’s rants lately?) Isn’t it unreasonable to expect Kathleen NOT to get offended? Especially when she is being **personally** insulted?

I assume you have your own animus against the Catholic Church, so you’re not exactly an impartial, objective observer. If you were, you would see what is so obvious to so many people, most of whom no longer post at that fetid little swamp for precisely that reason: Rod cannot refrain from bashing his former communion at every opportunity and on any pretext, obsessively and relentlessly. He is fixated on Gay Priests and manages to work every post even remotely related to the RCC around to this hobby-horse. And a coterie of anti-Catholic bigots is only too happy to join him gleefully in the bash-fest.

BeliefNet tolerates this, which means it is enabling the Know-Nothing bigotry. I strongly believe this should be brought to some sort of public notice. In this day and age, anti-Catholicism has no place at any civilized table.

And it’s not just that. **Rod calls people names.** The people do NOT call him names back. Kathleen has never called Rod a gollum or a satan. I have never called him a messed-up pig. We have NEVER responded in kind on that blog. Never. The “response in kind” canard simply will not work here. Search the RodBlog archives and see for yourself. You will never unearth an instance in which a victim of Dreherian name-calling responded with a similarly vicious insult. Never.

You have a problem at that blog, and it’s not the comboxers. Leastwise not the Catholic comboxers.

1:51 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

There's some really really really constructive work of the blogosphere continuing over here. But as usual, the best stuff is in the combox where Josiah writes:

"Here's a question: why is it that there is a blog devoted to critiquing Mark Shea, and one devoted to critiquing Rod Dreher, but not one devoted to critiquing Amy Wellborn, or Jimmy Akin, or Eve Tushnet? Is it just a fluke? There are these random hateful people roaming the net who have latched onto Mark Shea and Rod Dreher, but who just as easily could have become obsessed (if that's the right word) with someone else in the blogosphere? That doesn't seem likely. It's not just that there isn't an anti-Amy Wellborn blog out there, the very idea of such a blog strikes me as faintly ridiculous.

Of course, the fact that you have a habit of making people angry doesn't automatically mean that you are even partially at fault. It could be just the opposite. But it's something to consider."


Throwing time at an anti-Welborn blog strikes me not so much as "faintly ridiculous" as absolutely preposterous; maybe comparable to an anti-Reader's Digest blog. But the mildness and restraint in Josiah's consideration does not avail him in the least; the next comment from the blog author accuses him of "standing up for the obsessive and nasty ", "slap[ping said author] in the face" and "encouraging rebuke". You can find it here, for now at least. Comments have magically disappeared over there also in the past, if you don't recall....

Another good comment under the "do ya think!?" category comes from "Phil" who, while he doesn't understand our obsession with cowlicks or how the "i" is dotted at Rod's Beliefnet blog, nevertheless wisely posits:

"By saying these things I'm not siding with your critics, Mark. But I do think that your polemical style provides them with plenty of ammo." [bold mine]

Well, if that's true of the man who is Catholic and enjoys it, it also seems to be quite true of the man who used to be Catholic and didn't enjoy it.

In case anyone is wondering, I can't remember any mention of hairs standing up, dots on the lowercase "i" or prepositional criticism directed toward Rod over here. What is noteworthy to me, however, isn't the lack of substantive examples of loathing or despisal at this blog, or the anger boiling over at his, which is "sad, sad, sad" according to commenter Granada. We've all come to expect that. It's not even that he is obsessed with what the contras and foggies have to say about this, that and the other. To me, the most amusing thing is how he begins his post, "I leave for a few days and...". This provided the richest harvest of self-confessed delusion to my mind; the idea that there is no internet access in Birmingham, the insinuation that the man is some sort of moral glue providing cohesion to the blogosphere and sheer chaos ensues upon his absence, the crescendo of firm footsteps accompanied by a growing shadow of a man holding a rolled-up newspaper in the doorway as we cower like his puppies next to our little "accident", etc.

I don't know if these mini-Emporers of the blogosphere realize it, but when they go off like this, it is not so much like "providing ammo" as it is providing an open season by parading naked and disarmed, thus diminishing, if not dooming, their credibility. If pointing out strongly why one thinks someone is wrong is equivalent to "kicking them when they are down", then President Bush would have been kicked to death by a long list of enraged bloggers long before Crunchy Cons ever was published and Contra Crunchy leapt Athena-like from its cloven skull.

Probably VP Cheney also.

12:55 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

yeah, well, my TV is bigger than Rod's is. i'll bet it's bigger than Mark Shea's too.

oh, and over the holidays i watched all the LOTR movies on it -- in HI DEF --so i now know who the witch queen of angmar is.

just wanted to get mark shea a little madder, see if head explodes or something.

2:26 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Rod disses my Church. He disses Steve Irwin, and Roberto Benigni. He disses Wal-Mart. He disses my hero, GWB, on a daily basis.

I could actually forgive him for all that. But now he's done the unforgivable.

He's dissed "24".

3:39 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

LOL! I've never seen 24. But my best friend at work, a devout black Pentecostal, was raving about it today, so I looked it up on the Internet. Looks like I've been missing some pretty hot stuff. :)

5:03 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Just added a new entry about Rod's 24 comment.

To criticize 24 because the dialogue's wooden...

5:04 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

BTW--I can't believe I overreacted so much (and in such a silly silly way) to the Dreherian nastiness the other day. Have successfully circumvented the blighter's ban, have moved on to much more important things, and am now feeling like the cat that swallowed the canary.

Not that I particularly want to continue posting at Name-Calling Central. But I can. Should I ever want to. :)

5:07 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

hey shea came up with a very clever new name for us "the obsessostalker blog". so that means i'm an "obsesso": yes, all i think about is rod, and mark shea too, 24/7. how can i make their day worse, i wonder? how can i shoot down their arguments? i have nothing else to do with my time.

that also means i'm a "stalker": well, clearly. this weekend dreher made bread, watched 24, and bough a cuckoo clock everybody! how do i know these things: because i'm a stalker? or, um, maybe it's because dreher posted this all on his blog? for all the world to see. even the "obsessos". the thing is, i'm not sure it's possible to stalk someone who is trolling for .... stalkers.

5:46 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

He also has a "dangerous pit bull" in his neighborhood.

7:52 PM  
Blogger Victor said...

Kathleen wrote:

hey shea came up with a very clever new name for us "the obsessostalker blog".

Actually he didn't come up with it. That phrase came from Shea's prag, Zippy.

9:23 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Yeah, and I wondered what exactly about the man's style was "inimitable". Someone should tell Zippy that inimitable shouldn't be used as a synonym for odd or different.

Speaking of -onyms, I'll bet my wooden leg that Zippy is one of those secreat sooooooood-onyms....

...or maybe just a nickname? Are we allowed those?

10:02 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

i think a better name for Zippy would have been Pinhead.

7:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home