Nettavisen reports:
Jan O. Karlsson, the Swedish Minister for Migration, has got himself into trouble after calling the American President «that fucking Texas geezer».
It is quite a short article, but even so, the phrase 'that fucking Texas geezer' appears as the headline and also three distinct times in the body. By my calculations, including the headline but not the by-line, the phrase 'that fucking Texas geezer' accounts for 5.44% of the total wordage of the article. If we include this sentence but nothing beyond, then the phrase 'that fucking Texas geezer' accounts for 16.33% of this posting. This does not include the headline. If anyone thinks I ought to include my headline, I am entirely likely to chance it to 'that fucking Texas geezer' just to keep my numbers up. I think it would be fun to see how often one could work the phrase 'that fucking Texas geezer' into conversation. In quotation marks, of course. If one says it out loud, one is obliged to make quotation marks in the air: 'that fucking Texas geezer.' See?
If you do not care for the phrase 'that fucking Texas geezer', I am told that the phrase 'no-talent ass-clown' is also an acceptable one.
Did you know that 'that fucking Texas geezer' is an anagram of 'acreage Fez text tug knish'? I'll bet you didn't.
This news snippet comes to me via Why Do They Call Me Mr Happy?, who also points me to another online philosophy test, Taboo. I said it was morally acceptable to have sexual intercourse with frozen dead chickens, and then eat them. I am a very bad vegetarian. But a philosophically consistent one.
Scrolling down, I find that this Mr Happy runs a heck of a fun blog. He's even got a Chris Morris quote in his sidebar.
Why couldn't I have been British?
I'm sure it's 'that fucking Texas geezer's' fault somehow.
Posted by aloysius at June 18, 2003 01:22 PM | TrackBack |