the other day someone very dear to me asked about this. here is what i think:
it's being a hypocrite or speaking one thing (rede) while doing another (recks not his own...), as in:
1. laertes nannering on to ophelia about hamlet's immoral intentions all the while (laertes) planning to go to paris and schtup many marais whores.
2. be a republican and nanner on about the immorality of the godless and the homosexual and the non-child creater and then be caught in the primrose way with a young boy who is toting your luggage.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy/
3. or that other dude with the wet suits and unmentionables in FL (obv FL).
but i could be wrong.
1 comment:
i've always thought of those public debacles involving holier-than-thou figures being revealed for the slimebuckets they really are as being quite Shakesperian (or Webster-ian?). And that Laertes is a total hypocrite. However, i have a small complaint: you said there would be pirates. No pirates. Pirate deficiency. Fix please.
Post a Comment