I'm afraid you're mistaken. The book you mention does exist, but as graeme pointed out, it's an "unintentional" parody of the original phrase "the medium is the message", which is indeed widely attributed to McCluhan.
It's worth pointing out that McCluhan never wrote a book titled "The Medium is the Message", as the phrase is actually taken from his book "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man", which was published in 1964. I highly recommend it, if you're interested in challenging your preconceived notions of "post-modern" thought, whatever it is you take that to mean. This text covers many topics seminal to media theory, which I won't summarize here, but the line you casually discard as meaningless (as well as the greater context surrounding it) is by far the most influential portion.
Seeing as though I explained the meaning of the phrase for you above, I won't repeat myself here, but on a somewhat lighter note I think were he alive today, he would probably be intrigued by your comments, and the medium by which you derived them. The irony would not be lost on him.
It's worth pointing out that McCluhan never wrote a book titled "The Medium is the Message", as the phrase is actually taken from his book "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man", which was published in 1964. I highly recommend it, if you're interested in challenging your preconceived notions of "post-modern" thought, whatever it is you take that to mean. This text covers many topics seminal to media theory, which I won't summarize here, but the line you casually discard as meaningless (as well as the greater context surrounding it) is by far the most influential portion.
Seeing as though I explained the meaning of the phrase for you above, I won't repeat myself here, but on a somewhat lighter note I think were he alive today, he would probably be intrigued by your comments, and the medium by which you derived them. The irony would not be lost on him.