One final word
Avon, CO, Colorado
I suppose you are correct, Mr. Butler, meaning I did not find your cumbersome comparative analogy in any way ironic, which is what it would have to be in order for one to accurately deem your comparison satirical in nature.
While you clearly have a vast economy of words and write very well in English, judging from your recent missives, you seem to lack an astute grasp of irony. So, please let me at least try to help. For example:
One might understandably find it ironic that you clearly suggest abolishing the First Amendment despite it being the primary instrument by which your misguided “Camelot v. Constitution” attempt at comparative literature got printed by a “newspaper” in the first place; and, possibly more ironic, is …
It is only because the Constitution is considered a living, iterative document subject to change or correction that such a preposterous modification as the one you seem to suggest in your vitriol against the media could possibly be made in the first place.
To wit, I would not take 18th century thinking as absolute law today just as I would not take all of the principles found in your beloved, wondrous Camelot ” the underlying plot of which has been rewritten ad nauseam since its inception in the late 12th Century ” as uncontested truths, just as I would not follow medical advice from the 14th Century verbatim, … etcetera. Why? Because the realities of different and vastly more or less advanced eras are subject to constant change as is everything else in the known universe. Unless, I suppose, you still live in a cave and claim to practice strict adherence to an orthodox caveman lifestyle in which case I would be forced to publicly apologize because “caveman” is not the preferred nomenclature of our times.
Now then, if you will excuse me due to previous engagements, it is with this that I must leave you to ponder the wonders of satire or, whatever, and I urge you to do the same.