Perhaps my last teen-aged post

It is with a great sense of reflection and accomplishment that I write this final post from my teenaged decade. That's right, this Saturday, January the 29th I turn 20. Look out adulthood, you've got a loose cannon on your hands, which I have to imagine would be pretty painful because cannons are notoriously heavy.

I've been living up my last week of teenagedness, reflecting back on all the crap that's happened over the last few years and trying to figure out what I should write for this signoff from my adolescent years. I thought of a list of things I've learned (which turned out to be pretty short), a photo blog essay, funny quotes from the years...but nothings seemed quite right. Then I was looking over past essay's that I've written over the years and one stood out. It defined my work in High School and I think you'll enjoy it with a little set up.

The following essay was assigned to me by Mrs. (devil bitch) Morgan for making fun of a gay character in the novel Fallen Angels by saying: "He really should have joined the Navy. You know what they say about submarines...80 men go down, 40 couples come up." She responded with an icy 5 minutes of silence as the laughter died out and a 1000 word essay due the next day. It might help to note I wrote this with the voice of Mo Rocca narrating in my head. So without further ado here is my teenaged rebuttle:

" What I said about the Navy Submarine Men was totally uncalled for and somewhat random. I had no basis for saying that completely uncalled for thing. What I said was the completely off topic. The thing I said was disruptive to the class.

I had no basis to make that comment. I have no hard proof that Submarine Navy Men are gay or homosexual. I cannot prove that. There is very little hard evidence to suggest to one that just because men are on a submarine for months at a time without any women that that means they are gay or will become gay. That situation presents itself in prison and they are not all gay in prison. Just because there is an ambiguously gay or presumed gay character due to his effeminate characteristics is no reason to suggest he join the Navy because they are also presumed gay as afore mentioned. In keeping with that there is little evidence that the character from the story was, in fact, gay. There is no existing evidence in favor of his being homosexual or gay, in that I mean he was never seen with men in a sexual or flirtatious manner. He never openly or otherwise admitted to being homosexual. He may have been just a bit different and was henceforth persecuted for that difference. Just because he had no girlfriend and seemed more interested in movies than the movie starlets that he knew. Or fact that he had to try to survive in a hostile foreign country. One might question as to whether that is enough substantial evidence to come to the conclusion that he is homosexual. No I think not. Even with this Grand Canyon size hole, which is unignoreable by all who are so informed as to notice it, in the opinion of the fictitious soldiers still they believe that through all the talk of movies and starlets that he is most likely a person of homosexual orientation.

I had no reason to make the off topic comment about Submarine Navy Men. Saying that was wrong. Saying such a thing can only be bad. The comment is not even completely true. The comment was totally off topic for the discussion. What I said had nothing to do with Nam. The comment was more about the Navy, and more specifically the submarine part of the Navy, than the book we are reading, which is about the Army not the Navy. The comment was so very not on topic that one could say that it was very off topic. One could imagine how very not on topic the off topic thing that was said was. A statement like that was off topic in such a way as to make it so that it is not on topic. This of course means that it is unrelated or not related to the conversation if that makes the meaning more clearly iterated.

The thing I said was disruptive to the class and class environment. The comment was so disruptive that almost two minutes of time passed out of the forty seven allotted to that class. That amount of time could have accomplished a lot given the proper usage. There have been wars set off in less than two minutes. Many sporting competitions have been won or lost in less than two minutes. The death penalty by electric chair, which is considered one of the fasted methods of execution of prisoners in prisons today, is lethal in less than two minutes as is a bite from a Black Mamba, which is the deadliest poisonous snake in the wild continent of Africa discovered thus far. What the point is, is that two minutes are a lot in the course of events. The time taken out of the discussion could have been put to use doing something productive. The whole idea of wasting time in a class of only forty seven minutes is very wasteful. One must ask do people come to school to be entertained or to learn or is it a bit of both in a tasteful blend combining rich flavor and nutty goodness. In retrospect the comment that was so disruptive as to waste the time of the class that could have been used for something else.

In closing the comment that had no basis and wasted the time of the people in the class was bad. By this I mean really bad like the bombing of Hiroshima or the creation of the lethal chemical Anthrax. In short what was said had little basis. The afore mentioned said things were off the established topic. This meant that it brought up a new topic other than the one before it that was but not limited to being unrelated to the original topic. The rogue topic was also disruptive. By being disruptive it is meant that it brought disorder and chaos to an otherwise at least quasi-orderly environment. Bringing disorder and chaos is very related to the disruptive statement in that it was not in general considered good or bad if summarization is helpful. In short the comment was off topic. A topic that was about the book the new rogue topic, if one may be so bold, was totally away from the subject of the book which was Vietnam not Submarine Men. Saying the comment also caused disorder, which leads to anarchy, which is generally considered negative. The comment also was not associated with basis. In that what is meant is that the comment was not completely accurate. That in itself can be bad. The comment was indeed not on topic or with basis. The comment was disruptive and bad. In closing the comment was not good or, to put it more simply so as to make it more understandable, and put it the way it is more often said in this great country of free speech, where the buffalo roam and the sky is not cloudy all day, where you are free to voice opinions based on what you believe, bad."

Admittedly I've become a much more proficient writer, but this makes me laugh out loud every time I read it. Even more so when I think about the fact that this was supposed to be my sincere apology to my teacher for a politically incorrect joke. Ah, the days of my youth!

- Scott