| A. Fish is not a mullet by Joe Wortham |
>In the first Internet edition of the HAI News a discourse on Mullet >strew (rhymes with South Dakota shrew) confusion on the subject. >That is; Is A. Fish A Mullet? Perhaps this will help. > >It has been proven in a court of law that A. Mullet is not A. Fish. >Reasoning being that as Mullets have gizzards and fish do not, it is >obvious that A Mullet is not A. Fish. This was documented in a court >in Tampa Florida: > >Six young commercial fishermen were arrested and charged with >fishing during the closed season. Having no money, they paid the >lawyer by treating him to a fish dinner in which mullet was the main >course. The lawyer observed as the fish were cleaned that there >appeared in the entrails, a course structure which he had not seen >before. The fishermen assured him that it was a gizzard, necessary >for grinding grass on which mullet feed. The gizzards were >discarded and the mullet was served up in fine fashion, thus paying >the lawyer in advance for services rendered. > >Before the trial, the lawyer, Pat Whitaker, studied books and >questioned authorities and could find no evidence of any fish having >a gizzard, but found numerous references to birds having gizzards. > >When the trial started, Whitaker approached the bench and asked that >charges against his clients be dismissed on the grounds that they >were not fishing, instead only catching birds which was clearly not >against the law. On questioning by the judge, Whitaker conceded >that Mullet lived in the water, but that didn't make A. Mullet A >Fish, as it was well known that whales, oysters, etc. all live in >the water, and none of these creatures of God were fish. Beavers >live in the water and they aren't fish either. > >He asked the judge to consider this evidence and conclude that A. >Mullet must be some sort of strange creature, perhaps an aquatic >fowl. Yes in fact, A. Mullet must be a bird because like a bird, A. >Mullet has a gizzard! > >As there was no evidence to the contrary, the judge dismissed the >case, concluding that Whitaker had proven A. Mullet is not A. Fish! > >Now we fast forward to these enlightened times and find ourselves on >the horns of the dilemma posed in the HIA Journal: If A. Mullet is >not A. Fish, could it be that A. Fish is not A. Mullet? > >It seems that this can be resolved easily enough. > >A. Fish need only be subjected to a surgeon's scalpel to reveal >whether this particular Fish has a gizzard. Of course, there are >other Fish in the sea (and lakes) so this exploratory examination >will only answer the question for the particular Fish in question. >As is usually the case, much more research must be done on the >subject. > >*** >Reference; Vernon Peeples, Sarasota Herald Tribune, November 24, >1998. |