KEY POINTS:
Are you saying I should deny giving a donation to New Zealand First? When I did? - Consul-in-Waiting, Mr Owen Glenn.
A very nice lady sent a very nice email the other day. We shan't dwell on its contents. Some of the material is, put bluntly, quite
incriminating.
Particularly phrases like "night of love, waves of pleasure, large packets of lard" and "39 Indians are missing", not to mention words like "ecstasy, rapture, dripping" and "pith helmet", which could so easily be misinterpreted by the malcontents.
But what is noteworthy, in light of the controversy surrounding Mr Glenn's missive to his PR adviser, Stephen Fisher - neither of whom is the very nice lady, incidentally - is the complete absence of question marks.
Phrases like "you tireless love machine" and "when you did that thing with custard" appeared exactly as reproduced here. No interrogatory squiggle rears its ambiguous head at the end of either phrase in the original document.
The very nice lady did not write "when you did that thing with custard?" Unfortunately. Because, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better if she had scattered a few question marks like seed on the pasture of her prose.
They would have created uncertainty, raised doubt, caused confusion. And made denial a doddle.
A few question marks, popping up at random? would mean a chap could either question the intent of his correspondent or hold up a big card with the word NO on it whenever some incompetent journalist with a hidden agenda maliciously suggested the billet-doux conclusively proved some mischief of an erotical nature was afoot.
What's erotical about afoot? - A very nice lady.
Good question, ma'am. Very similar to those so innocently posed by the magnanimous Mr Glenn: "Are you saying I should deny giving a donation to New Zealand First? When I did?"
Clearly, the poor fellow doesn't know.
Or that is what New Zealand Thirst leader Winsome Peters is suggesting.
Desperate (?) to prove he's Monarch of the Glenn and not his manservant, Mr Peters has properly focused on his donor's (?) use of question marks, especially in the sentence, "When I did?"
"Well, there you are," says Mr Peters. "If he doesn't know if he made a donation, how on earth should I!!!" (Note use of exclamation marks.) Or should that be (note use of exclamation marks?)
There! See how one "tiny" piece of punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence.
No.
No?
Oh well. Never mind. Winsome does. That's what matters.
Except, it's not. By drawing attention to the question marks, Mr Peters has raised some major ethical issues, not least Mr Glenn's state of mind.
If the poor fellow doesn't know whether or not he made a donation to New Zealand Thirst - "When I did?" - then the awful thought occurs that Mr Glenn may possibly be, ummm, how shall we put this, ga-ga?
If so, is it ethical for a party to accept (or not accept) money from a person who may believe they're actually supporting the Dargaville Under-13 Papal Visit Fire-Eaters - all of whom have absconded since arriving in Auckland.
Shouldn't there be a question mark at the end of that sentence? - A very nice lady. Probably.
Furthermore, if Mr Glenn is unwittingly bestowing his money on politicians, would it be wise to appoint him as our honorary consul in Monaco - which is where he lives and where, no doubt, the sale of Vector has exercised him greatly.
Should he be appointed in, let's say, a state of mild confusion, he could trigger an international incident - perhaps while hosting a reception for the Dargaville Under- 13 Papal Visit Fire-Eaters - by inadvertently introducing the reigning Prince Albert as Mr Osama bin Laden or, worse still, Elton John.
Sadly, the jackals of the media have ignored such matters.
Spurning the ambivalence of our Owen's question marks - to which Mr Peters so sensibly clings - they've concentrated their excoriating wrath upon his possible(?) beneficiary.
Not surprisingly, Mr Peters has lashed out, particularly at The Harold, suggesting its decision to publish the expose - in which the exonerating question marks are clearly quoted (?) - is evidence of a merciless campaign to besmirch the reputation of the best reincarnation of Rob Muldoon we've ever known.
He has suggested that the article's author, Ms Audrey Young - who is a very nice lady but not the very nice lady - should resign.
Along with the paper's dynamic and manly editor - who isn't the very nice lady, either.
Now, look here, Mr Peters. That is a bridge too far.
Our editor is one of the finest tyrants to ever spike a column.
His donations of time and expertise would match any funds that may or may not have been given by anyone called Owen to any political party.
Honestly, you could call him an evil Svengali hellbent on kicking decent MPs in the baubles and he wouldn't sack you?
Oh, yes I would!!! - Ed.
But, Sir, Sir, there was a question mark, Sir. A question mark!! Doesn't that mean it's okay??????????????