I once had to put up with this tool who couldn't string together coherent sentences because he didn't have coherent thoughts. instead, he spoke in sentiments suggesting depth and followed a schema of behavior that he must've modeled after that creepy kid in American Beauty. (you know, the "everything is so goddamn beautiful I just can't take it I'm gonna vomit everywhere unless you take off all your clothes so we make the nookie" kid.) this particular smacktard wrote awful poetry that suggested deeper melancholy, hunched over his guitar while listlessly strumming it and engaged awestruck women hunting for passion in conversations about "the nature of... things."

the worst were his quotes. I like quotes and aphorisms as much as the next guy and I don't mind when people whip some juicy ones out as appropriate. this assclown kept a little book of quotes with him at all times, but the quotes were all sort that uncreative people used to start or end shitty speeches and shitty essays. you know, quotes by kennedy, gandhi, lincoln, martin luther king and dr. fucking seuss. I may just be speculating, but it seemed to me that he'd memorize a few the night before just to throw them down in the middle of conversations about passion, connectedness / brotherhood or social change. the funny thing is that it's possible to maneuver just about any conversation to revolve around one of these subjects. the sad thing is that none of his quotes ever came close to fitting.

examples:
"if you really work hard, you could achieve your dreams."
"yeah and martin luther king once said, 'I have a dream.'"

or "shit! something's in my eye!"
"gandhi once said, 'an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.'"

don't get me wrong, I actually have little problem with plain stupidity. I am not the quickest of cats and I appreciate the consideration of those more brilliant than I, so I do my best not to be too much of a bastard to those less fortunate. I could understand if he was just learning to play guitar and played it shittily every chance he got in order to improve. I could accept that he might not have read as much on the philosophy of mind or obscure topics in psychology. unlike some nerds, I understand that to be a nerd is a choice and other people might choose to spend their time around real people.

the bottom line is I can accept earnest naivete and obliviousness. this isn't a matter of intellectual elitism though. there was something else going on. call it the difference between being multi-faceted and being a chameleon.

most of us have a tendency to embellish our stories a little. we pretend to be a little smarter, a little tougher, a little more unfazed, a little more knowledgeable than we actually are. we highlight and exaggerate and minimize for dramatic effect. I can accept harmless story manipulation even to the point of blatant white lies. still, there was something insidious about this particular guy. something about him gave those in the know the distinct feeling that things would be bad if someone fell for his ruse.