Sklansky's Godot

[RJT]

Riddle: What’s the difference between Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” and Sklansky’s unnamed theory (about geniuses being correct) when applied to geniuses’ religious views?

Answer: One is a play in two Acts that intentionally says nothing (yet, it does). The other acts intentionally to say something (yet, it does not).

Sklansky’s theater of the absurd, here on the forum, has indeed lived up to the genre. Once Sklansky’s Godot is deemed meaningless*, child-like antics such as name calling** is resorted to. Arguments dissolve into insults. (Ironically) Sklansky becomes like Beckett’s simple fellow Vladimir (Didi).

Sklansky’s desperate attempts to show any value for the use of his theory in said context might prove him right, thought, in at least one thing he stated (although at the time I thought he was joking): He might indeed be semi-senile.

One often quoted review of Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” said something to this effect: Nothing happens…twice (referring to its two Acts).

Here nothing happens ad nauseam . It is time for this drama’s run to end. (Either way this, character (RJT) is exiting the stage.)



*Although, Sklansky never implicitly states that any conclusions can be drawn, he seems to imply such. Sklansky’s theory in this context says absolutely nothing. It is moot and he is well aware of this.

** Quote from Sklansky (posted in the thread titled "Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on 'thought' "): “Then don't add in stupid stuff about how some ho cheated on her husband and somehow got lucky enough to get out of it by starting a ridiculous religion.”