All week people have spectulated as to the exact meaning of Zach's cryptic blog post on August 2nd. Throughout the blogosphere, people have attempted to break the code to unearth what Zach is trying to say.
Well, I have assembled a team of experts to decipher once and for all the REAL meaning behind Zach's message. On my team I have two socio-linguists, an anthropologist, a psychologist, a theologian and a plumber (he's my uncle and wanted to help out)
After doing a thorough text analysis, these are our findings.
In the 509 words that Zach wrote in 47 lines, he uses the word and 10 times but only uses the word but five times (and never uses the word butt at all).
The word and indicates the need to connect which outweighs his desire to contradict. (My uncle, the plumber, noted that if Zach's words were connecting pipes they would most likely be made of Cross Linked Polyethylene--but none of us have a clue what that means).
Zach uses the conditional word if only three times which reveals he has or may not have been under harsh conditions. If he were under harsh conditions, then he would have said so, unless he wasn't and felt he didn't need to mention it.
Most strikely is that he uses the article the 15 times but only uses the article a seven times which indicates a leaning towards fundamentalism. (example: the truth vs. a truth: which he never says, but it is a good example all the same or for instance in plumbing terms, the leak vs. a leak)
Zach uses the word so one time but also uses the word sooo one time...sooooo that means...well we all know what THAT means. (What does it mean???)
He does not ever write the words yes or no which strongly suggests that he has not made up his mind, unless of course he has and he is just playing with us.
Finally, he uses words referring to himself (I, I've, I'm, me and the widely used internet version of I'm--im) 50 times. Fifty! L!
The experts I've consulted all agree that this means that Zach's blog posting is about ZACH--not about the "ex-gay" movement, LIA, the gay agenda, phallic fruits, Tom Cruise, Calvin Klein or Pat the Bunny.
It's about Zach.
Soooo Zach, our panel of experts hopes that in the midst of the media madness you can have a good laugh and enjoy what's left of your summer vacation with no worries about what labels to wear or not to wear--we mean of course labels like gay or straight or "ex-gay", not Calvin Klein and A&F.
(We all agree that those are way too gay and way overrated.)
Well, I have assembled a team of experts to decipher once and for all the REAL meaning behind Zach's message. On my team I have two socio-linguists, an anthropologist, a psychologist, a theologian and a plumber (he's my uncle and wanted to help out)
After doing a thorough text analysis, these are our findings.
In the 509 words that Zach wrote in 47 lines, he uses the word and 10 times but only uses the word but five times (and never uses the word butt at all).
The word and indicates the need to connect which outweighs his desire to contradict. (My uncle, the plumber, noted that if Zach's words were connecting pipes they would most likely be made of Cross Linked Polyethylene--but none of us have a clue what that means).
Zach uses the conditional word if only three times which reveals he has or may not have been under harsh conditions. If he were under harsh conditions, then he would have said so, unless he wasn't and felt he didn't need to mention it.
Most strikely is that he uses the article the 15 times but only uses the article a seven times which indicates a leaning towards fundamentalism. (example: the truth vs. a truth: which he never says, but it is a good example all the same or for instance in plumbing terms, the leak vs. a leak)
Zach uses the word so one time but also uses the word sooo one time...sooooo that means...well we all know what THAT means. (What does it mean???)
He does not ever write the words yes or no which strongly suggests that he has not made up his mind, unless of course he has and he is just playing with us.
Finally, he uses words referring to himself (I, I've, I'm, me and the widely used internet version of I'm--im) 50 times. Fifty! L!
The experts I've consulted all agree that this means that Zach's blog posting is about ZACH--not about the "ex-gay" movement, LIA, the gay agenda, phallic fruits, Tom Cruise, Calvin Klein or Pat the Bunny.
It's about Zach.
Soooo Zach, our panel of experts hopes that in the midst of the media madness you can have a good laugh and enjoy what's left of your summer vacation with no worries about what labels to wear or not to wear--we mean of course labels like gay or straight or "ex-gay", not Calvin Klein and A&F.
(We all agree that those are way too gay and way overrated.)
Comments
I'm glad we know now. Peterson, what would we do without you?
I absolutely adore you and your wit. Remeber when the LIA guy Tommy was asking you if you were from Russia because of your fasionable hammer and sickle shirt? You replied "Well, we're in a red state and I thought I'd wear a red shirt." I've told that joke to my whole family and believe me, you've got a future on the Russian immigrant comedy circuit.
As for all this, I hope you've read the QAC post about Zach and how we feel. Personally, I've always thought and acted as though this was not just about him. I mean the match that starts a forest fire is important but you have to deal with the fire, not the match at some point.
Also I wanted to let you know that I'm about to start writing columns for www.queerplanet.us, I think under the title "Queer Thoughts".
Take care,
Alex.
Loved the crack about wearing labels. That was precious. I'm in Portland for a software developer's conference and discovered the other day that I hadn't packed enough socks. I went to a place near my hotel and saw some CKs and bought them just...just...just Because!
It sounds to me like he's feeling *harrassed*, really. If he says one thing on his blog (and you KNOW his parents are reading it, right?), then THEY'LL put pressure on him. If he says something too "anti-gay" then he'll get lots of posts from gay people pushing their own agendas, too. (Which it seems has happened already.) He's a victim of agenda-pushing. And so he's trying to sound as neutral as he can, as an act of self-preservation.
That's my take on it, at least. I feel really sorry for him, in any case.
--Tom
Great piece.
Peace
Clint
and thanks for dropping by milkriver . . .
all my best,
tony g
You can clearly see Zach has, unfortunately, adopted some of LIA's phrasiology such as:
"one-sided (biased) agendas"
"sugar-coated"