The mental faculties of your regular contributors have always been the subject of a certain, shall we say, dubiosity, but heretofore your editorial board has been, frankly, above reproach. This changed, dramatically, in the May 2019 issue, which contains quite the worst piece of editorial writing we have ever seen. Whoever “Weirahl Innitto Gaither” may be a pseudonym for, we cannot help noticing that his/
The abject dismality of this “editorial” has unfortunately ruined your chances with us; we regret to inform you that we have removed Speculative Grammarian Editorial Board from our list of considerees for future journalism awards.
The Pulitzer Prize Committee
Dear Pully Price,
No skin off our nose, as they say. We totes understand that you’re in a difficult position and have to grasp for any vague justification you can find for disconsidering someone. Otherwise everybody’d be winning all the time.
For the record, though, we would like to point out that we are way funnier than most of your 2019 “winners”. And a lot more highbrow, too.
P.S.: You guessed it, by the way! Weirahl Innitto Gaither is a pseudonym alright. In fact, that editorial represents the very latest in Human Mimicry of Automated Text Generation, a cutting edge field in which humans pretend to be algorithms in a “nothing-
Speculative Grammarian accepts well-
The June 2019 editorial made this dubious claim: “humans can put their tongue in their cheek (but only one at a time) if they’re being ironic.”
This is just the sort of short-
I suppose there’s no point in encouraging you to exercise just a bit of academic curiosity when composing your editorials.
We hate to be blunt, but you’re wrong. Entirely wrong.
In fact, the suggestion you make (in woefully inadequate detail, we might add) was considered multiple times, and was represented in several early drafts of that editorial. No less then four working committees submitted briefs regarding its plausibility, and the legal department had a heyday (their word, not ours) outlining possible repercussions if we made that suggestion in print; in fact they submitted a 300-
In the end, Pragmatics Subcommittee A.2 (chaired by Editor Deak Kirkham) made the arguments which prevailed. Though we cannot reproduce them here, due to considerations of space and legal implications (and don’t even think of submitting a Freedom of Information Act request, ’cause we are a private publication, buddy), we assure you that we are greatly confident in the rightness of the eventual decision.
Thanks anyway for your concern. We do our best to accommodate all reasonable suggestions. If only yours hadn’t been so woefully out of touch with the thoroughness of our editorial processes...
In last month’s Letters, we published a letter from Rev. P. Earl Klutcher of Focus on the Language Families, who complained rather rudely about Pumptilian Perniquity’s use of the language family Cushitic in a limerick.
I was severely disappointed to see that the Pumpkin of Iniquity managed to sneak a curse word into your poetry.
While we initially thought that the Letters’ Editors’ reply to Klutcher’s suggestion of Cucrapic was sufficient
When asked for comment, our inveterate Notorious Gourd replied “Harumph” and was soon on a roll. He dedicates the following verse to P. Earl Klutcher:
He expressed the hope that this is not too subtle for him, given the orthographic rather than conceptual bent he’s got (as it were), and added, “Don’t worry, I can keep this up aaaaaall night.”