Investigative plagarizing blogger to the rescue!

Aha! If only I had scrolled down slightly more in How Appealing, the blog from which I brazenly stole the subject of that last post, I would have discovered the answer to my question! I should have known that the relevant information was to be found in a judicial opinion. The federal judiciary, God love it, is never one to shy away from explaining the gritty details of joke-telling penises or other burning social issues in sterile, uptight language:

At issue here is the sixty-eighth episode of the show he has entitled "Tim’s Area of Control" . . . The episode included a three minute segment in which a flaccid penis and testicles marked with facial features was the only object within camera range. During this segment, a voice-over was heard identifying the penis character as "Dick Smart" and providing purportedly humorous commentary as if on behalf of the character.

Hmm. Now that the end of my quest is nigh, I should be feeling relieved--but in fact, I find myself faced only with more questions. Specifically, is "flaccid penis and testicles marked with facial features" really a singular subject such that the verb following it should be "was," rather than "were"? The thirst for knowledge is never quenched . . .