On March 28, on www.doktorfrank.com, Frank Portman wrote the following:
WAGBOG HISTORY UPDATE: Apparently I'm not the first person to acronymize "what a great bunch of guys." Got an email today indicating that any history of WAGBOG would be incomplete without reference to this guy's dad:
I'm writing because I'm curious about the genesis of WAGBOG. I'm asking because it's been in our family since the early 70's. The family would be watching MASH or something on TV, and when the show was over and they froze the action with everyone smiling, my dad would say, "What a great bunch of guys!", which, over time, became shortened to "WAGBOG!"
Posted by Dr. Frank at 05:26 PM | Comments (6)
I realize the internet is not public domain. That's why all of this is referenced. Moreover, King Dork is a necessary read (to use a verb as a noun in a grammatically-atrocious plug).
Okay, now that I feel safe in further plagiarism, I can't help but speak to the ensuing commentary (n=6), here:
"WAGBOGs are, by definition, date rapists."
That's a little harsh.
Posted by Richard at March 28, 2007 05:37 PM
"Harsh" and "universal truth" are often interchangeable. Whether fortunately or otherwise is the debatable end.
Posted by Matt R. at March 29, 2007 05:10 AM
Thank you, Matt R.
The 0.0 GPA wish dork wishful thinking. These people do go to college and likely never get their commuppence.
Posted by josh at March 29, 2007 02:38 PM
Okay. Um... Where to begin. I guess I'll start with this: I don't know what you're saying. My grammatically appalling plug (roughly five to nine inches north) wasn't so appalling in comparison. "Wish dork wishful thinking." I promise I don't understand what this means. And were you trying to use the word comeuppance? If so, that's a terrible word. I'd lump it into the same category as "utilize." There are just better words available to you with the same definition. Don't hesitate to "utilize" them.
You're so right, Josh.
Posted by rejo at March 29, 2007 03:48 PM
You're so right too, rejo!
That's just bizarre. Who says WAGBOG and who has the right to decide whom is so? And why should we always believe Dad?
Posted by Leslo at April 2, 2007 12:04 AM
Frank did. And I think that's fine. Actually I think it's applaudable. Moreover, I think your sentence would be smoother with who instead of whom, despite the loose concept of a subject being verb'd upon. It's just hard to read the way you wrote it. Can I take a moment to illustrate a lesson in literacy? Once you've started a sentence, if you foresee an awkward ending, I swear you can rephrase what it is you're saying. You're never committed to use of the words who and whom. Especially while typing.
Now can I respond to your accusation of who gets to define WAGBOG? I'm going to... I was just trying to act reserved and polite by asking for your permission. By that same logic, who gets to decide what "that's" and "just" and "bizarre" mean? Or "who" and "says" and "and" and "has" and "the" and "right" and so on... "Whom" decides those words?
iacocca is still the best acronym in the universe. and if ya dont know, find out!
Posted by chris riordan at April 3, 2007 08:49 PM
I Am Chairman Of the Chrysler Corporation of America. It's okay.
That's all I can respond to because you guys haven't written any more. I do welcome your criticism/condemnation back though. Nay, I encourage it. I'm certainly not excusing myself from appropriate scorn so long as it's spelled correctly, coherent, and your choice of words is satisfactory. And hopefully you can make it exceedingly harsh/a universal truth. Cheers!