Such was the case of James Joyce and his ponderous tome, Ulysses, and such was the case with Freud, the Masters & Johnson studies, the Happy Hooker series, and on and on. So no, I'm neither going to read the Grey book nor see the movie, having already suffered under reading Ulysses, thank you very much. Just because something causes the society to buzz doesn't mean that it's actually a good read.
Had an interesting exchange with someone who shall remain nameless but will doubtless recognize himself in this missive should he wander over to this entry. It was on a topic that began some time ago regarding a poll that the Enid Eagle was running, showing Vanhooser up 60%. At the time, I observed that the Eagle also cited a poll which showed the Enid Parks Master Plan quite popular, too, and mentioned that the issue was the Eagle's credibility, which I didn't think amounted to much, and was on the same credibility level as its Readers' Choice contest. The fellow in question soon thereafter went out and endorsed Vanhooser, and the recent conversation involved just how badly Vanhooser got his ass handed to him, in which said fellow pooh-poohed the credibility of the Eagle's "online poll".
I'm quite pleased that this gent has finally come 'round to my way of thinking, but where does that leave our intrepid Enid Eagle, exactly? Will such a credibility issue be reason enough for that rag to discontinue "online polls"? I mean, it's not like it was EVER famous for being accurate; inaccuracy has been one of its time-honored traditions and this particular inaccuracy is one to be bragged about for decades to come.
The one thing he and the Eagle had in common was that neither entity wanted to admit that I had anything to do with Vanhooser's precipitous drop. and so I find myself now championing the accuracy of the Eagle's poll as a bragging point. Are they going to now tell me I shouldn't, because they admit that the poll was bogus, functioning as the paper's subterranean means of contributing to Vanhooser's campaign in hopes of exerting influence on the future vote? Ah! Good question! If that was the intention, if proven, then the Eagle exercised a Keystone Kop effect, and we should blame the Eagle entirely for Vanhooser's nosedive, huh. Not buying that one, sorry.
No matter how you try to slice this pizza, it's still a chuckle pizza.
Sunday mini-UPDATE: Gotta field another comment about the election, and to that person I'll say that it all depends on how you look at things.
- Vanhooser got a drubbing after leading the Eagle poll at 60%, and that's a fact.
- There are over 3,000 registered voters in Ward 5, and that's a fact.
- Only 800 of those 3,000 turned out to vote, and that's a fact, a fact which indicates that 600 voters were, in the main, components of the Wilson machine, rather than this being a case of Ward 5's voters being thrilled with her poor performance.
- 200 of those voters voted for me, and that's a fact, and for a first time rookie, not bad, given that this was roughly 1/3 of the turnout. In terms of campaign cost per vote, it's actually outstanding.
It appears to be a fact that, given my supporters in the other wards, evidenced by Vanhooser's massive nosedive, I have Ward 5 surrounded. Wilson now faces a stiff headwind if she wants to accomplish more ferris wheel nonsense projects.