AcmeShorts

02/5/2004 anonymous (5):

02/5/2004 qualcomm (4): not sure i understand what happened here, but the swearing made me laugh. i assume he ended up with hilda, and she's a vegetarian? or was that incident a fantasy? i'll overlook the misplaced modifier in graf 1 since these are notes to self, streams of consciousness if you will.

02/5/2004 Jon Matza (2): One of these two stars is a gift. Abysmal.

02/5/2004 Joe Frankenstone (2): "Cunty" and "Memory bank low" both standouts. The third paragraph reminds me of every sexual fantasy I ever had in high school. One star off for that.

02/5/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum (4): I thought this was funny. But Feldspars explication makes it still funnier. I don't really get the "memory bank low" thing, though. Or maybe I do, but I just don't think it really added anything.

02/5/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: Excuse me that was "Feldspar's explanation." Note the apostrophe. Lest I be scolded once again.

02/5/2004 anonymous: THanks for over looking that, Feldspar. He's basically talking into a tape recorder. What do you mean by end up with? While he's getting his cock sucked he simply remembers that he has one more errand to run.

02/5/2004 Dick Vomit: overlooking

02/5/2004 Texxx (3): I like 'foppish outfit.' The 'Note To Self' motive is a little played-out at this point. 2.5.

02/5/2004 anonymous: Motive???? Also, where was it done?

02/5/2004 Texxx: 'Motive' meaning its repetition. Not that it's been done on this site - just that it's played-out (in the world of pop culture). I've heard it too many times in too many places.

02/5/2004 qualcomm: texxx, do you mean motif?

02/5/2004 Texxx: Yes. Sorry, I'm thinking in musical terms, where 'motive' applies.

02/5/2004 Dylan Danko: No Texxx, I think you still mean motif. Also, I think i agree with Matza.

02/5/2004 Texxx: A musical motive is a recurrent phrase or figure.

02/5/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: I thought the fact that it was "played out" was part of the joke. It wasn't ever a funny line before it became cliche.

02/5/2004 Dylan Danko: My apologies Texxx.

02/5/2004 Will Disney (5): I just read this one. SPLENDID.

02/5/2004 qualcomm: oh i finally fully get it. he interrupted his own dirty talk for another note to self. that makes it even funnier. but, you should have used an em dash (—) to indicate interrupted speech. the ellipsis tricked me into thinking he trailed off, or that time had elapsed since the blowjob.

02/5/2004 qualcomm: also, the 3rd graf's quotations are confusing. shouldn't the whole thing be in quotes?

02/5/2004 anonymous: You're quite right about that.

02/5/2004 Dylan Danko: Done. Sorry but I did not edit this one at all.

02/5/2004 Dylan Danko: Whoops! Silly me.

02/5/2004 anonymous: mulp

02/5/2004 Texxx: Since when did 'graf' become an acceptable substitution for 'paragraph'? I don't like this.

02/5/2004 qualcomm: why did you say done when it's not done?

02/5/2004 Jon Matza: I don't know whether it's more important at this juncture to express my outrage at the good ratings this rubbish is getting or to ridicule the master of malapropisms/butcher of English Texxx for his attempt to strike a pedantic, professorial tone. God help you all.

02/5/2004 Texxx: My 'professorial' tone is sort of a joke. That people aren't getting, I guess. Plus, motive/motif is barely a malapropism - because it isn't so funny.

02/5/2004 qualcomm: i learned 'graf' from scoop. he's in the news biz. eh, he's probably got more ink running through his veins than blood.

02/5/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: What are you talking about, Matza? It only has a 3 average. And as for the rest, it made me laugh. I'm not so sophisticated as to be wired beyond it.

02/5/2004 anonymous: "Motive" and "motif" can be used interchangeably, it seems, both in a musical and literary sense.

02/5/2004 Jon Matza: No, Jimson, no. All bets are off. What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? That's my question.
Texxx: "master of malapropisms" referred to you, not your latest gaffe. Have the recurring comments pointing out words you've absurdly misused since joining acme escaped your notice? Or were those usages also the result of your tendency to think in musicological terminology?

02/5/2004 Jon Matza: And anonymous: just because they can be doesn't mean they should be, unless your goal is to sound like a pretentious twat and/or confuse your constituency. Saints preserve us.

02/5/2004 Texxx: Right. But where were the other malapropisms, the overwhelming presence of which would elevate me to 'master of malapropism' status? I've had a few spelling errors along the way. I'm too lazy to research your past grammatical mistakes. If there are none to be found, then kudos! Matza, your focus on demeaning me in particular is growing tiresome.

02/5/2004 Texxx: Are you quoting Yeats? Man, that's sophistimicated.

02/5/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: I don't know, Matza, but its moving its slow thighs across the desert sands, which is pretty sexy if you ask me.

02/5/2004 Dylan Danko: Is it Christ, Matza? Are you Christ?

02/5/2004 anonymous: Or is it Texxx?

02/5/2004 Jon Matza: I'm suffering like Christ, anyhow. Texxx: it's your writing and defensiveness about it I'm trying to demean, not you. It seems like every time someone points out a contradiction, mistake or lapse of taste in your usage or content, you go through a series of rhetorical gymnastics to explain that your mistake wasn't really a mistake; it was actually a joke. Or it was characterization. Or you were thinking in musicological terms. Or it was an avant-garde experiment. Or the commentator is just trying to demean you. Etc etc etc. Honestly - it's beyond belief. I already pointed out the tendency of your shorts to get recurring comments like "opaque", "impenetrable", and "I don't get this". But you won't hear it; your comments suggest you think you're never wrong - you're just being persecuted. The consistently low ratings? The product of more persecution, clearly. This mindset is what frustrates me and moves me to attack your responses. I wouldn't, though, if you just absorbed people's comments and dropped the justifications, explanations and preposterous attempts to be didactic. Jesus, Joseph and Mary!

02/5/2004 Texxx: If I were never wrong, then I wouldn't apologize when I've made a glaring error or ever engage in non-defensive discourse (as I in fact do with most critics). If you are interested in researching this, please see the responses for my recent Count short. As for comments such as 'opaque,' 'impenetrable,' et al., that's a pretty weak argument. You're pulling those from this and this, two shorts of mine that are obviously not in the usual Acme format. Does that make them good? Not necessarily, as you elaborated in a past rant. But it's worth trying something different now and again, no? I made the mistake of assuming I could write a short or two without a humorous bent (like this) and thinking they might be well-received. I won't make that mistake again. As for the claim that my shorts are recurrently difficult to 'penetrate,' well, I'll take that to mean I value chastity, or something.

02/5/2004 Jon Matza: Good idea - take it to mean anything but what the words are actually saying. Then make a sorry joke about it. Whew! Now you don't have to think about what it means or alter your approach.

02/5/2004 Texxx: Huh?

02/5/2004 Jon Matza: You should wear a t-shirt that says that.

02/5/2004 Texxx: Ha!

05/24/2004 TheBuyer (2): I'm gonna have to pictch a tent in Camp Matza, and duece you. I'm sorry on all counts.

06/7/2004 TheBuyer: why, oh why have I constantly got voters remorse? WHY GOD WHY?

05/31/2005 Mr. Pony: What did you want to give it?

05/31/2005 TheBuyer: Maybe three?

05/31/2005 Dylan Danko: Fucking Moosewood, The Buyer. Now do you get it?

05/31/2005 TheBuyer: Fucking. Moosewood.

05/31/2005 TheBuyer: Oh Fuck, Fucking Moosewood! Fuck! Now I get it. FOUR!