ME: "As opposed to what?"
WOLF: "In contrast to being anti-choice?"
ME: "Choice about what?"
WOLF: "You've read the news, know the issues, and follow the latest controversies. You know what the choice is about. We do not have to mention or discuss that."
ME: "Choice about what?"
WOLF: "Do you support a woman's right to choose?"
ME: "Choose what?"
WOLF: "Do you support women's health?"
ME: "Health to do what?"
WOLF: "Do you support a woman's reproductive freedom?"
ME: "Freedom to reproduce?"
WOLF: "Do you support abortion rights?"
ME: "I do not answer foolish questions such as that, because you have just uttered an oxymoron. There is no right to commit abortion homicide nor any sinful or criminal action. Was that what you meant by "choice," by "reproductive freedom," and "women's health?"
WOLF: "I'll go on to the next question. Do you believe in evolution?"
ME: "Does it matter whether I believe or do not believe whatever, and what do you mean by "believe in evolution?" That such a theory exists? That there are those who vocally presume such theory to be valid, and propagandize such?"
WOLF: "Is evolution true, or false?"
ME: Now, you've asked the question they way it should be asked in wording which is appropriate. The answer is an emphatic: False. The anti-Biblical-creationist theory of evolution is invalid."
WOLF: "No need to bring in religion here, nor refer to the Bible."
ME: "I will refer to anything I want, and think appropriate, or this interview will promptly end, and we will go our separate ways."
WOLF: "You might be held in contempt of court. Do you support gay rights?"
ME: "What do you mean by gay?"
WOLF: Oh c'mon now. Everybody knows what that means nowadays. Do you support gay rights? Answer the question!"
ME: "Hey, if I knew what you meant by "gay" I would not have asked you the question of what you meant by "gay" being that I would have already known the answer. I'll ask you again: What do you mean by gay?"
WOLF: "Do you support homosexual rights?"
ME: "There you go again, wording the question as an oxymoron. Two things diametrically opposed to each other. Why do you do that? Are you trying to legitimize something that you yourself imply is not legitimate? Why not rephrase the question into a proper question, instead of a loaded one? I remember my mother-in-law frequently saying to me: "Why would I do that?" Recognizing her loaded compounded question as would be presented by some tricky lawyer to avoid recriminating backlash whatever my answer might be, I responded: "First we'll have to find out if you would or would not do such. Then we'll get to discussing the 'why' of it."
WOLF: "Is homosexuality acceptable or non-acceptable?"
ME: "What do you mean by "acceptable?" That a person can accept or reject it? What do you mean by "acceptable?"
WOLF: "OK OK. Enough already! Is homosexuality right or wrong, righteous or wicked, good or evil?"
ME: "Ah! Finally! Bingo! Now you're asking a question the way it should be asked, and enabling me to give a brief, concise, short, to the point, time-saving, yes-or-no answer."
WOLF: "What is it?"
ME: "What is what?"
WOLF: "Is homosexuality right or wrong, righteous or wicked, good or evil?"
ME: "Homosexuality is always wrong, evil, wicked, and more along those lines."
WOLF: "Is it wrong for a girl or woman to wear a shortened skirt?"
ME: "Can't answer that, Wolf, because your question is woefully and deplorably non-qualified. A shortened skirt under which she is wearing slacks or non-tight leotards? A shortened skirt baring legs only in view of her own husband in their own house or bedroom or bathroom? Your question needs some serious qualification and context. You sure know how to waste interview time asking questions with wrong or deceptive wording, or not giving adequate or complete-enough details to avoid misunderstandings, and we do not have that much time to keeping on chatting with each other."
WOLF: "Is it wrong, evil, bad, wicked for a girl or woman to ignorantly or especially deliberately expose her bare-naked legs to men, for whatever cause and not necessarily reason, to boys and men she is not currently married to?"
ME: "Oh Wolfie! My, the improvement in your question! I am overwhelmed. Taken back. Thrilled. It almost sent a tingle up my leg, as Chris Matthews would say. Most pleased. Gratified. Thankful. Appreciative. Satisfied. What was the question?"
WOLF: "Is it wrong, evil, bad, wicked for a girl or woman to ignorantly or especially deliberately expose her bare-naked legs to men, for whatever cause and not necessarily reason, to boys and men she is not currently married to?"
ME: "Yes."
WOLF: "Have you ever watched porn, or fornicated with a masseuse or escort?"
ME: "Completely, or partially, fornicated? Or temporarily wanted to?"
WOLF: "Whatever."
ME: "Not whatever. The distinction is somewhat crucial."
WOLF: "Have you ever had a one-night stand or an affair with a masseuse or escort?"
ME: "Have you?"
WOLF: "I'm asking you."
ME: "As I, you."
WOLF: "Are you going to answer the question? Are you?"
ME: "This interview is over. Sahaladan, bring me Larry King!"
