Answers from last week’s quiz (with apologies to Kenneth Horne)
1. The ‘sinister’ meaning. Those of you who answered 70/74 need to see a better class of tailor.
2. Not particularly, although one respondent suggested that a certain type of ‘ex-conspiracies’ are always malevolent no matter whether it was a mutual thing or cheating with her sister.
3. Well, someone from Waikato suggested third base, although if you use the ‘shortcut’ on level two you can get all the way to the bossfight using only the hamster and jello. However, the right answer seems to be ‘it depends on what end result is being desired.’
This week’s winner is Mr. Frank Stupid, not because he entered but because he deserves a shoutout for his general amicability.
2 Replies to “Answers from last week’s quiz (with apologies to Kenneth Horne)”
… amicability … paralytic laziness – it’s such a fine line.
Christ perhaps I should attempt to answer those questions then:
1. I would have picked sinister too. But only because you’re a clever bastard who can’t be trusted not to be obscure (this, of course, comes from the man who once translated “All your base is belong to us” into arabic for a post. Okay, babelfish translated it, but the point remains – when it comes to pretension I only lose out because you dress far, far better than me, not to mention that rather nice cane …
2. Conspiracies are like gossip – we only really care about the malicious type. Benign conspiracies probably exist, but who cares? Alright, possibly you could argue that conspiracies by their nature must be malevolent because the hallmark of a conspiracy is secrecy, presumably because if we knew what they were up to we would try to put a stop to it (the conspiracy might be in our interest, but not to our preference). Then again what about a good conspiracy that must keep itself secret to fight the bad conspiracies? Insert appropriate 80s TV show reference here:
3. Nah, I reckon the hallmark of a conspiracy is secrecy, not how successful it is at maintaining that secrecy.
Ah, my cheap trick to get at least one comment has worked. Next week I ping the Pope and ask him what’s really going on with that Vatican Banking thing.
In re 2; I suppose one iissue might be that the outcome of a conspiracy might be labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending on a) how successful it was and b) who happens to be writing the histories at that later stage. The Illuminati Conspiracy (the original Bavarian one) was a plot to end theocratic governance. I think that was a good idea, but it was certainly cast as being a bad one at the time. The One World Government Conspiracy, once you rid it of the shape-shifting reptile plotlines and the Christian Endtimes malarky et al doesn’t seem that bad either.
Comments are closed.