DCML digest, Vol 1 #74 - 9 msgs

Søren Krarup Olesen sko at acoustics.dk
Sun Feb 6 16:25:57 CET 2000

DON wrote:

> Aside from that, we've discussed the fact that Donald is a human-being here
> in the past, and I won't get so deeply into that again since I know people
> either "get it" or they won't. I am surprised to see that, for the first
> time, a European thinks he is unhuman... normally it's strictly the
> funnel-visioned Americans who have that concept.

Like Per-Erik I too believe that Donald is a human duck. This is often
emphasized in Denmark because in Danish "man" is "mand" and "duck" is "and".
The pronouncations of the two words are exactly the same (except for the m of
course), and this gives reason to a lot of funny phrases.

> Why would I want Donald not to be a duck? Because ducks don't wear clothes
> and live in houses and drive cars and talk and are not sentient beings
> except in fairy tales and funny-animal comics, neither of which I do.

I fully understand your POW, and I don't think I disagree. Logically, Donald
cannot be a duck due to his human mind, wearing clothes and all. On the other
hand, he cannot be a man either, since no human (that I know of) would look
like that. Finally, he can't be a man nor a duck, since he basically is a 2D
projection of a fictitious entity on a piece of paper.

Being less logical and spicing it up with a bit of imagination I think of
Donald as a good old fashioned quack-quack who happens to have this special
gift of thinking like humans. There is nothing more to it.


More information about the DCML mailing list