When I read the written word of Clay Rogers, I can’t help to think of a baphometic symbol clutching the Bible and proclaiming the true meaning behind Christmas. It is like the strawberry smoothie I didn’t have the other day, tart and actually mango.

Sorry. I couldn’t help but make an outlandish statement and series of comparisons to grab your attention. Note that the following is a satirical response to articles by Rogers in general. I am writing in a passive aggressive manner with the intent to be critical on the style of Roger’s writing. Now of course it is only based on my opinions, and if it bothers you, then I suggest you do what I have failed to do. Turn the page.

The opinion section is clearly labeled as such, yet when my hands sift through that section, I sometimes find that I leave with too many ink stains. It’s as if the disgusting attributes of certain articles refuse to leave me, even when telling myself that they are nothing but opinion. I think it’s the matter in how some are presented. Passing off opinions on complex topics as fact is all too common. To be clearer, I will say that assigning one label (add an adjective for effect) to anything is inherently foolish, especially when used as a casual statement for effect. Also, the use of the superlative in opinion gives the reader the sense that the author is completely arrogant. It begs to ask an important question derived from the great Kamina, “Who the hell do you think we are?”

Since I am about halfway through my thoughts, I feel it necessary to give context. Context on my orientation. I am neither right nor left winged in politics. I am the most “middle” organism on campus — I go both ways. A quote from Ralph in “Lord of the Flies” appears to be somewhat relevant, “Shut up!” This now ends the interjecting paragraph.

Perhaps Rogers best change his style when conveying his points and generally I do find there is a point, regardless if I agree or not. I gladly refer to a short story by Gertrude Stein titled “Miss Furr and Miss Skeene.” Maybe the childish mannerism in the writing of the short story would be a clearer way of representing Rogers’ point.

Perhaps my message is lost in the excessiveness of that which I write. Am I further encouraging the pompousness of the written word flowing from the mouth of Rogers in this satirical response? By acknowledging his articles, do I point the innocent toward a path of mutual frustration? Maybe I should have never responded. After all, I’ve definitely established that I too can be quite the ass. Perhaps I should close my thoughts with an absurd proclamation?

Reading is not a duty. If we don’t read, he might go away. If the editorial comes down to Rogers, I can promise there is at least one ISU student who will not be reading.