I appear to be misunderstood. Which, in a way, is a good thing, for it is frequently thus for geniuses — well, at least for those who are worthy of book-length biographies. With that in mind, I suppose I could even interpret the apparent confusion amongst a small fraction of my audience as some kind of accolade.

Desperate grasping at dangling threads of potential fame aside, maybe I should explain what I mean by “misunderstood.”

Apparently whilst most people (including the charmingly irate bunch that posted comments on The Daily’s Web site) realized that the purpose of last week’s piece was to highlight the utterly indisputable fact that all Stanford undergraduates are so spoiled as to be de facto royalty, some folks thought I was making an ever-so-slightly more subtle point (“Spoiled brats,” Oct. 10).

These misguided fellows (and fellettes) were laboring under the misconception that what I was trying to say was that the irrational prejudices of some graduate students were, well, irrational.

For reasons that escape me, some interpreted the comparisons between undergraduates and the baby Jesus as a deliberate exaggeration, designed to highlight the absurdity of believing that each and every younger member of our little institution has led a charmed life.

I suppose, though, it’s ultimately my fault. I misled people by beginning the column with a discussion of the dangers of prejudice. This canard must have led people astray. I’m sorry. I really wasn’t trying to insinuate anything more than my assertions about overly-pampered children.

The idiocy of a religious tolerance that depends on the religion in question was obviously not relevant to the broader point, and should really not have been mentioned.

As I re-read my work, I find other possible points of potential confusion. By asserting the absolute infallibility of TAs, I may have given the impression that I wasn’t being entirely serious — after all, we all know that infallibility is the purview of Papal figures, not omniscient graduate students (we’re just never wrong).

Furthermore, after deeper reflection, it occurs to me that my whimsical observations about the relative “hard graft” required for graduate school could have been taken in the wrong way (especially the snide reference to ski trips).

Obviously what I meant to say was that although the graduate student population almost certainly has a social composition similar to the undergraduate one, we’re still justified in crying “spoiled brat” because, well, I say so.

Sarcasm is a terribly dangerous thing. Likewise, subtlety. And irony. And indirectness. And all other literary devices. In fact, any attempt to say anything in any fashion that doesn’t spell things out clearly is foolish, and possibly lethal. Which is why I avoid them all, and only write the Gospel Truth.

I realize that this particular approach might be considered inappropriate. Many people (especially those darned intellectuals) seem to think that stating things directly is some kind faux pas, not really appropriate amongst the academic elite.

But you know, I believe in the “No Spin Zone.” If you’re going to say something, say it straight up. Don’t weave around the point, meander about the meaning or twist and turn between tautologies. Just be yourself (unless “yourself” is subtle, in which case be someone else).

The quest for truth is hard enough without the accidental shading that arises from a lack of clarity. So I’m truly sorry. For all of you that thought I was mocking prejudice, that was not my intention.

My apologies extend especially to those who were insulted by the apparent suggestion that it wasn’t okay to think all the kids are spoiled. Of course it is, and in no way would I, or any other reasonable person, think that tarring everyone with the same proverbial brush was at all inappropriate or unjustified.

The aim in last week’s article, as in this one and everything else I write, was simply to draw attention to the absolute, complete, certain inferiority of undergraduates. I hope I’ve cleared that up now.

If you feel the above is insufficient, please email navins@stanford.edu for a personal prostration and apology.