AnswerMan
This month, we feature what might be described as a somewhat schizophrenic
interview with our very own AnswerMan, who will be played by QuestionMan. The part of
QuestionMan will be taken by AnswerMan. Confused? Read on.
QuestionMan: I would like to start by pointing out
that you owe your existence to me. After all, without questions, would there really be a
need for answers?
AnswerMan: You've got that exactly backwards, my friend. Answers have
always been with us. They're called knowledge. We've got whole libraries full of the
stuff. You should check it out.
QM: I've been to libraries, good buddy, as well you
know. You were there. My point is, what good are all of these answers if they have no
relevance to the questions people have?
AM: Amigo mio! Did you know that people have been actually known to read
all types of things, including non-fiction, simply because they are interested? Would you
believe that some of these people, when presented with specific questions, find they
already possess the data to provide answers? You are confusing general knowledge with the
library reference section. That's where you go to get an answer to a specific question;
or, you could simply ask me.
QM: OK, pal, that brings up a good point. Are you
aware that many regard your so-called answers as being little more than uninformed,
opinionated comments on current issues? Did you know that most people think you simply
make your answers up?
AM: Hey, bunkie, people are going to believe whatever they want. If they doubt
the veracity of my responses, they can always ask someone else. I never let truth
interfere with accuracy.
QM: That's either very deep or very stupid, old
chum. Could you explain exactly what you mean by that?
AM: I would be happy to explain, mon ami, although I had thought you were
bright enough to understand. To get the hidden nuggets of wisdom in my answers, people are
required to, as they say, "read between the lines." While the accuracy of my
replies may be occasionally doubtful, the truth, as I perceive it, is always in there.
QM: Oh? What about the time you told people that
cotton candy was, and I quote here, "invented by the serendipitous team of Carlton
Cotton and the better-known late comedian John Candy in 1973"? Explain that one to
me, mister.
AM: No problem, chief. Sometimes, as in the question of who invented
cotton candy, I simply fabricate what I think is a humorous response.
QM: That doesn't let you off the hook, mate. Where
the hell is the truth in that little answer?
AM: Temper, temper, old salt. Let's try to keep this interview on a civil
level. The truth there, as in the case of any of the other answers I have made up, is that
I thought the question was too inconsequential to merit an accurate response. These types
of questions were probably generated by a bar bet. Does anyone actually care who invented
cotton candy?
QM: How can you justify an attitude like that?
Don't you feel any sense of responsibility to your readership?
AM: May I remind you, jack, of the warning readers receive with my answers
every month: "Think carefully. AnswerMan welcomes your questions, but he reserves
the right to mock. Additional caution: serious questions are quite likely to produce
frivolous answers."
QM: I am a serious journalist asking serious
questions. Frankly, I am beginning to doubt my longtime association with a moron like you.
Maybe the time has come to end it.
AM: Is that a threat, dipstick? Because if it is, you had better realize
who is dominant here, before things go too far. Don't say things you may regret.
QM: Oh, I'm shaking. What are you going to do,
jerk, do away with me?
AM: I'm sorry you feel that way, you twit. You leave me no other choice
but to initiate a personality purge. You weren't that much fun anymore, anyway. Goodbye.
QM: Hey! What's happening? I'm cold. The room, it's
getting dim! Wait! Wait! Stop! I was only kidding! Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer
do...arghhhhhhhhh!
(TO BE CONTINUED?)
[ Home ]