Anablogcabin
Thursday, November 27, 2003
"So Do They Shoot Him Down Or What?"
Posted by Shakti Mann @ 2:20 PM
Another contribution from the Department of Wasting the Taxpayers' Money.
You know. Like the turkey pardon.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
It Just Takes Two (To Tango?)
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 12:12 PM
No.
To make a dream come true.
Sue, get your head out of your ass. Clearly Peachy Carnehan and Daniel Dravot never could have overtaken Kafiristan simply by being members of the Freemasons. They did it by being charming, drunk, ambitious, and British. Imperialism is...like...in their blood, man.
As far as people disappearing, Sue - well, ever heard of a little ranch in Nevada called Area 51? Yeah, it's no theme-park, mister.
And finally, speaking of "The Man Who Would Be King", do you see any similarities between the protagonists of that film and Charles Taylor, the recently deposed monarch of Liberia who was born and raised in Boston? Now, he didn't get as much press, and there were no Hollywood re-dramatizations, but I think his is as great a success story as any Kipling could conjure. And don't tell me he didn't get mad love because he was a ruthless warlord. I think we all know the real reason Charles Taylor didn't get the props he deserved.
The man, my friends, is...black.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Hey, Them's Fightin' Words!
Posted by Sue @ 11:52 AM
Hey, Sumday... In case you didn't hear me the first time... People disappear all the time.... All the time.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Modern Stone-Age Family
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 11:23 AM
Sue, I was merely providing a hilarious caption to the recently posted picture of our President and his turkey. But, since you seem so eager to pick a fight, then remove your gloves, sir, hoo-wah!
The Freemasons are an unruly group of quarryists and stone-tablet manufacturers who, in their sloth, ride Brontosaurs at work, using the large reptilian creatures as mechanical cranes. In their meetings, they wear preposterously large hats made of buffalo fur and bright orange tunics. Occasionally, they will complement their attire with purple ties. They don't drive cars but prefer, in the ways of the hinterland, to propel their way through traffic by hoisting the shells of their automobiles in the air and running quickly. At times they run so quickly that their legs become a blur and a faint "whirring" noise is audible.
The Freemasons are not to be feared, Sue. Quit your paranoia-mongering. The Freemasons are to be loved and, occassionaly, pitied.
Permalink |
-------------------------
...Is Worth Two in the "Dubya"
Posted by Sue @ 11:22 AM
Don't mock the Freemasons, Sumday. Haven't you ever seen "The Man Who Would Be King"? Membership in the Freemasons' Tribe could very well get you the administrative and moral support you need from Christopher Plummer, should you decide to take over a nation made up of tribes, devoid of any central leadership.
And just remember this one thing: People disappear all the time.
Permalink |
-------------------------
A Bird in the Hand...
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 11:08 AM
"By the mercy vested in me...uh. I decree you your freedom. Uh...forever shall you fly over these great plains, hm. Uh, uh, you should be proud to be a symbol of our nation's great strength and moralality. Uh...and God is Great and Amen. Let's eat!"
Permalink |
-------------------------
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Well, You Know What They Say...
Posted by Sue @ 8:00 PM
..."To become a Freemason, just ask."
And now, for the caption...
Bush: "Now this here is what we call a Texas BJ. Come here, little Turkey... Don't be shy. And remember, NO BEAK!"
As for Carnivale... Why does everyone in that show walk funny?
Permalink |
-------------------------
There's Something About Scamardo
Posted by Analogcabin @ 12:40 PM
Something about either Jimmy's post or the article it referenced reminded me of an odd dream I had last night in which I became a Freemason.
Perhaps it's Carnivàle's influence on me.
Speaking of which, thoughts?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Portraits in Naivete
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 10:17 AM
So many paragraphs in this article read like punchlines. Awful, tragic punchlines. For instance:
"That night, Mr. Scamardo said, he awoke to find Father Delaney on top of him, masturbating him...
Mr. Scamardo said he soon told James Reese, the lay youth minister at Sacred Heart Parish in Austin, who listened sympathetically — then sexually abused him on several occasions."
This guy Scamardo goes on to represent the Roman Catholic Diocese against lawsuits brought by victims of sexual abuse, figuring out ways to shortchange the settlements and limit the church's liability. For five years he does this, until finally:
"...it dawned on him...a man abused by a priest as a teenage boy had spent most of his legal career defending priests who abused teenage boys."
Irony. She is but punctual.
And it gets better. He eventually decides to resign and submit for his own settlement, then becomes "angry and outraged" when the church tries to stiff him, using the same tactics he employed when he was general counsel.
You could say he's a victim, confused and conflicted following a tragic turn of events. You could also say he's a dope.
But, man, got to hand it to the Catholic Church. Can they inspire member loyalty or what?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Posted by Analogcabin @ 9:37 AM
"I've got some stuffing for you, ya little minx. Presidential stuffing."
(Far short of Jimmy's, I know, but his is a rare talent. Brilliant caption, Saffron. Magnificent.)
Permalink |
-------------------------
Monday, November 24, 2003
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 5:53 PM
Bush: "Merhaba, my friend. My heart goes out to you and your people following that horrific act of--"
Aide (whispers): "Psst. Mr. President. That's a Thanksgiving Turkey. The Ambassador from Turkey doesn't arrive until four."
Permalink |
-------------------------
And to Break My Silence....
Posted by Analogcabin @ 5:02 PM
"The last time I stroked a gobble this big, a whole lot of Ole Grandad and OxyContin was involved."
Permalink |
-------------------------
Shakti Mann's Fun With Captions!! (captions not included)
Posted by Shakti Mann @ 4:45 PM
My Lord...
The possibilities for captions here are just about endless.
Anybody wanna take a shot?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Sunday, November 23, 2003
A Hymn for the Time Capsules...
Posted by Shakti Mann @ 12:55 PM
With all this talk of wooing women and male contraception, I think we need this now more than ever.
Amen.
Or should I say "word?"
Permalink |
-------------------------
Friday, November 21, 2003
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 9:00 PM
I'll have you know, 20th Century Fox does not permit viewing of the link Barry posted below, due to the rating of its content, classified as "intolerance/extremism."
What trickery are up to, Barry? And why doesn't Rupert Murdoch want me to see it?
Now, to go hand-in-hand with Barry's contempt for pseudonyms and punctuation, I wish to flaunt topicality and present all of you with the following query:
Could you, safely, would you?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Here's One For You Guys
Posted by Barry @ 6:29 PM
Enjoy.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Dost Thou Detesteth Love?
Posted by Sue @ 1:20 PM
Lest any relationship turn south and head for the shitter, I'd recommend that you all take a look at this rant and rave.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 8:56 PM
A couple corrections to Billy's post:
Neither Cheney nor Rove authored the aforementioned "Love, Success, and Joy: Diversions in our Just War Against Evil," and though the memo was widely quoted in "Romance Defined," it did not actually originate with The Committee.
True authorship of that memo resides with the PNAR, a conservative think tank based in Washington. Cheney introduced the paper when it was unveiled earlier this year, at a PNAR-sponsored gala. Rove's role in its authoring, though widely speculated on, has never actually been confirmed or proven (Rove denies all knowledge of the memo's existence, in addition to denying any knowledge of the actual meaning of the words "love" and "joy.")
PNAR stands for The Project for a New American Romance. Its chairman is a journalist and academic named Neil William "Sandy" Sandee. Sandee boasts a large circle of friends amongst neo-conservative insiders that includes Vice-President Cheney, Richard Perle, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and his papers on behalf of the PNAR often act as talking points memos for the Bush administration. More and more these days, the Bush administration, widely regarded as weak on romance policy, has deferred to Sandee for counsel and strategizing.
Sandee, with the help of Cheney, has labored to shoehorn the tenants of "Love, Success and Joy" into the broader ethos of the "War on Terror." However, to this day, it has failed to create much of a stir. Many critics see it as a rather transparent attempt to restore a sense of pragmatism to PNAR's mission, which took a dive in credibility following Sandee's trumpeting of the now infamous "Preemptive dump" memo.
This memo (full title: "Of Cold Wars and Cold Shoulders: Crisis and Opportunity in American Romance Policy") suggested that in a world of dissolving commitments and eroding values, Americans can no longer wait to be dismissed by potential lovers. Instead, we must act to end our romantic endeavors preemptively, at even the slightest suggestion of incompatibility. When asked if he would go so far as to "dump" a potential love interest before any kind of relationship had even begun, Sandee replied:
"We have to consider that a possibility. Listen...this is a new world, a new threat. We simply cannot afford to sit back and wait to be rejected, hoping our enemies will announce their intentions. We cannot expect a smoking gun. We must reject first, or else the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud...of humiliation."
Permalink |
-------------------------
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 1:04 PM
That may be well and fine, Saffron, but "Workin' It: Sex, Love and Vocation," which was released in the gregarious and worry-free era of the Clinton administration, smacks now of naivete and wishful thinking. We are, it must be admitted, living in difficult times, so perhaps then we should refer to the latest addition to Romance Defined, appendix IX, entitled "Love, Success, and Joy: Diversions in our Just War Against Evil".
Penned by honorary Anabloggers Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in a secret bunker shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center, using a top-secret magic-ink disappearing pen, and wearing state-of-the-art night vision goggles, the two sat alone and cranked out one of the greatest arguments against happiness ever conjured.
The below excerpt is taken from their subchapter entitled, "Workplace Attraction, or, Hey Lovebirds, Get Back to Work!"
"It is in this regard that the committee wishes to express deep condemnation of passing notes, glances, or fancies in the workplace between coworkers sharing a mutual sexual attraction.
We have evildoers to catch, people.
The committee understands the possibility and prospect of coworkers, sharing long periods of time in the same space and environment, developing feelings of arousal and desire.
Hey folks, these terrorists are out to destroy the very notions of freedom and liberty, ok?
If two coworkers begin to feel a reciprocal sexual attraction, we suggest that the coworkers immediately notify their superiors. If one of the coworkers is a superior, then we recommend the superior begin steps to ensure the 'relocation' of his/her inferior to another position outside the organization if the relationship is meant to be pursued.
This is no time to dilly-dally. You think these people care about the rules? Wake up, boneheads.
The answer to all other questions regarding this policy is "no". If "no" is not an appropriate answer, then the answer is, "absolutely not". If this answer is still inadequate, well then maybe you need to stop asking so many questions and start thinking about who's side you're on.
We're not gonna win this thing with hugs and kisses, people.
Bring it on."
Permalink |
-------------------------
You Even Have to Ask?
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 12:51 AM
Of course The Committee has something to say on this topic.
From "Workin' It: Sex, Love and Vocation," appendix VII to The Committee's Romance Defined:
The Committee wholly supports love in the workplace, because The Committee supports love, unequivocally, in all its variations. There are no ethical roadblocks to love in the workplace, says The Committee, because true love transcends all. It is the ultimate virtue, the highest priority in life, and should thus be pursued freely.
Additionally, The Committee would like to highlight certain job sectors where it believes romantic and/or marital relationships on the job can be particularly advantageous. These are: international espionage, sitcom acting, retail flower markets, pornography and space exploration.
There you have it.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Ace the Deuce
Posted by Shakti Mann @ 1:31 PM
I wonder, Jimmy, does the Committee's Romance Defined have anything to say about your situation with your co-worker? Does she display any of the "10 Signs of Gettability?"
Permalink |
-------------------------
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Shitting Where You Eat, and Other Success Stories
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 9:51 PM
Sumday taps the internet, and the limitless knowledge contained therein, only to end up more confused, more in the dark. I know his pain.
Like a lot of other "freelancers," I use Microsoft's Hotmail system as a personal email client. One drawback to this, of which they are many, is that the entry page is peppered with all kinds of special interest links and sidebars meant to encourage impulse surfing, not unlike the candy counters at a supermarket check out line. Here are some sample headlines, and I'll leave it to you to guess which are real and which aren't:
"Eyebrows: Do we need them?"
"Bush in Texas."
"Who likes misquitoe bites?"
"Which red is right for lips?"
"Britney: 'I'm a role model.'"
"Sniper Suspect Malvo: 'I'm a role model, too.'"
Usually I'm able to resist their siren song. Today was different however, for upon logging on, I saw the following:
"Five Reasons Not to Date Your Coworker."
Egad! See, I recently went on a date with a coworker. I saw no reason not to, and here was MSN counting not one, not two, but five! My heart racing, I clicked on the link. The headline read: "Danger: Office Romance Ahead!" Danger? What do you mean, danger? Immediately, I began to read.
Luckily, MSN's Roberta Chinsky Matuson was at the helm of this advice column vessel, and her sly wit and limber prose quickly steered us toward calmer waters. Like a stern but loving parent, Roberta warned that office romances, though convenient in many ways, aren't so easily put behind us should they go south. You still have to see person every day, making those hectic work hours even more stressful. You risk being consumed by office gossip, not to mention a harassment suit. In other words, you can't just put a choloform rag over the relationship, stab it a few times with a ice pick, leave it a shallow river bed and move on. If you get my meaning.
Overall, I found Roberta's column very helpful. I applied her reasoning to my own situation and decided that yes, indeed, it would be wiser to seek love elsewhere. I had a good time on my date, I sensed potential, but my mind was clearer now, the dangers ahead borne out in sharp relief. I had avoided calamity.
Or so I thought.
For just as I picked up the phone to dial my now un-intended, my eyes passed over the "Related Links" sidebar, only to find this:
"Top 5 Keys to Mixing Work and Romance"
Already there was ringing on her line. Panicked, I slammed down the phone, then gripped my iMac monitor with both hands. Did my eyes deceive me? Nope, there it was, courtesy of Mr. Marty Nemko: five cogent ways to make your office romance a rousing success.
For chrissakes Marty, where were you five minutes ago? Turns out, I was in no danger at all. In fact, according to Marty, I'd done everything right! I'd moved deliberately, kept things coded and quiet. Suddenly, in the face of his logic, Roberta's advice felt like nothing more than the paranoid rantings of bitter, jaded alarmist. She almost cost me my hard-earned office romance; the sweet, sweet fruit borne from several weeks of frugal flirtation and diplomatic doting. How dare she!
I think my lesson should be clear by now: be careful what you read on the internet, especially if it's written by Roberta Chinsky Matuson. If she had her way, we'd all be eunuchs, and sex in the storage cubicle would be nothing more than a fairy tale we tell our grandchildren, instead of the rollicking good time that it is.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Monday, November 17, 2003
I Did It (but sort of wish I maybe hadn't) Ebay!
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 1:31 PM
What are to make of this internet contraption? A medium for artistic expression, an immediate forum for the exchange of ideas, and a marketplace for the sale and purchase of goods and services, it is a both reliable and suspicious friend. Nowhere, perhaps, is this more apparent than Ebay, where for me, every transaction is an act of hopeful trust in my fellow man.
If the internet is a landscape, then clearly there are crevices and schisms no person should venture toward. Child pornographers, terrorist recruiters, and fans of The Matrix possess particularly dubious sites: surfer beware. These are the sinkholes and fault lines of a typically tame and safe terrain of bloggers and merchants.
Ultimately, though, every page visited presents at the least a minimal risk - somebody could be watching, and that person is probably John Ashcroft. Slightly more to extremely more troublesome, though, are sites where goods are bought, sold, and shipped. Not always because of the obvious risk of credit and identity theft but, more often for me, because I usually end up buying something that is much shittier than I thought it was going to be.
Ebay presents this problem every time I type a word in its alluring "search" box. Whether it's an old woman from Georgia's stuffed dog ("taxidermy georgia dog") or a photograph of a girl playing with a shoe on a dustbowl farm ("picture feral child"), Ebay is constantly presenting me with objects I feel I need to have, but clearly know I don't. If the price is right, however, I take a shot, hoping for the best.
I recently received in the mail a 1920's aerial map of the small village of Peru, Indiana ("wabash indiana map" - Wabash being the river that runs through the town). Wondering how such a scene could have been witnessed in the 1920's (there are no large hills or mounts in the area - possibly hot-air balloon?), I became intrigued and purchased the item. Advertised as being roughly 14" x 20" and sepia-toned like old-timey maps of the era, I felt proud of what I hoped to be my first ever remorseless Ebay purchase.
When it arrived, however, the buyer's remorse struck me like a whiffle-ball bat to the neighbor's tomato. On a large sheet of commonly purchased "photopaper" (not the original dead-sea scrolls-esque parchment I was imagining) was a colored rendering of the town, clearly the image I had seen on Ebay but far from what I had expected. Presumably scanned from a postcard and enlarged 5x, the lettering and details were both fuzzy and bright.
So some asshole is scanning old postcards, enlarging them on his or her outdated Photoshop and printing them on oversized sheets of photopaper. More quickly than you can type "mukor monkey sex video" my anger turns from the deceitful and dishonest world we live and back upon myself.
What was I expecting? Why am I such an idiot?
Please, no responses to this post.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Story Time
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 11:23 AM
Yes, Sue, I know the adage well. And I know, too, it's point: when camels deliberately piss in wells, balancing their awkward stilted bodies above small, rounded cinderblock openings in the ground, bending their humped backs to peer below and aim - ooh! a little to the left! - then we've finally taught those camels a thing or two about hygiene.
For like the man in the story, I realize too that camels have spat, shat, and sat where they please for too long. And though the man may have tasted water uncharacteristally acidic that fateful day, he also tasted, I am sure, a sweetness of life in knowing that his camel, having scurried off the day before, was not lost but instead went searching for a suitable hole to lay his waste.
Oh joy triumphant! was his cry after his first uritic sip. Oh life resplendent! his shout. Divine creator, the beauty of your workshop made whole!
And in this way, I can see what you mean about having commercials play before movies.
Permalink |
-------------------------
RespectAnalogcabinsSmallPenis.org
Posted by Sue @ 10:25 AM
Yeah, I can see the point of that respectcopyrights.org posting at Low Culture. However, it is true that fame and fortune is a moral absolute in Hollywood. Therefor, it is totally within the rights of Jerry Bruckheimer, et al. to exploit the blue collar class of Hollywood.
Shit, I didn't twist these peoples' arms to be a stuntman or carpenter. They should've thought about that before they decided to go that route. Why should I pay for their ineptitude and their inability to become a multimillion dollar producer?
It's the Jerry Bruckheimers, Michael Bays and Roland Emmerichs of this world that make life worth living. Shit, if George Lucas didn't produce Star Wars Episodes I-III, I don't know how I would've made it to age 30. Classics like "She's All That," "The Next Best Thing" and "I Got the Hook Up" deserve a level of respect and reverence too often reserved only for a deity or deities.
How could have any of us made it through the 80's (yeah, Mr. Cabin with your 105.5 score) without such quality television programming as "Charles In Charge" and "Alf." Go ahead, tell me. I'm listening.
Films like "Independence Day" and "Pearl Harbor" remind us what it is to be American. "Propaganda" you say? Can I help it if the American Flag just happens to be so perfectly lit and immaculately unfurled every time Michael Bay points his camera at it? Hey, maybe it's divine intervention... Or the guy's just lucky.
Just remember the old adage of the man who walked 43 miles to get a drink of water only to find out the camel he had rode in on ran ahead of him while he slept and pissed in the water the night before the man got to the well. Aha... Think about it.
Permalink |
-------------------------
RespectCopyrights.org
Posted by Analogcabin @ 9:38 AM
Here is why I read Low Culture -- it's a dead-on take on why those anti-bootlegging ads that play prior to movies are a huge insult to blue-collar Hollywood. Sure, I find them insulting, too, but as your average Joe, I'm used to being insulted by Hollywood's sub-par output and by the ever-increasing numbers of advertisments I pay a skyrocketing amount to watch. I think the argument is especially silly in light of the fact that this week marks the first time that digitally distributed single sales outpaced physical sales, according to this Reuters piece.
I know we've discussed this a bit before, but I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on it again, especially since at least a couple of you are what I think of as blue collar Hollywood.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Mama Said Knock You Out
Posted by Shakti Mann @ 1:09 PM
"Didn't expect much out of Shakti or Sue!?"
The same way your old lady doesn't expect much out of you in the sack?
ZING!
Permalink |
-------------------------
Friday, November 14, 2003
The Eighties
Posted by Analogcabin @ 4:02 PM
To be frank, I didn't expect much out of Shakti or Sue. I think suspect Barry's my real competition, though Jimmy could be a dark horse.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Wrong 'Em, Boyo
Posted by Shakti Mann @ 2:51 PM
I scored a big 30 points, baby!
BOO-YEA!!
If we were playing golf, I'd be kicking all your all's asses...
Permalink |
-------------------------
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Uh, Oh 80's!
Posted by Sue @ 10:48 PM
Analogcabin, you are such a loser... Scoring 105.5 on the 80's music quiz.
Here is proof that I am not so pathetic:
My score: 66
Permalink |
-------------------------
That Dog Won't Hunt!
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 8:35 PM
As a judge, advocate, and general of all things colloquial and quaint, I thought I'd pass along the following webpage to all you Chief Cook and Bottle Washers out there.
Now, I got enough horse sense to know the difference between a feller that's just a little cattywampus and one that's walking on a slant (I'll give you a hint - one is tore up from the floor up, the other's just carried too many lazy man's loads) but I'd venture to state it's as scarce as hen's teeth to come across a full-blooded Arkie who still uses the phrase, "Frog gig".
Are your druthers my ruthers, or am I just a pig on ice?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Since We All Seem Bored
Posted by Analogcabin @ 4:30 PM
I just took this '80's lyrics quiz and got 105.5 points. I'm curious if any of you have the sack to defeat me.
Permalink |
-------------------------
The Last Five People on the Internet
Posted by Analogcabin @ 12:43 PM
The PARIS HILTON SEX TAPE was posted days ago at The Spoonbender -- America's Last Best Hope. Where you been lookin'?
Do the old "Save As" trick to this link, wait, then behold.
Permalink |
-------------------------
There Is Justice!
Posted by Sue @ 12:17 PM
When freaks like this moron get what they deserve, all I can say is "There really is a god... And I don't need no fucking monument to prove it!"
P.S. Analogcabin, can you at least please post the PARIS HILTON SEX TAPE? I can't seem to find it for the life of me.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Whoredom Rejoice!
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 5:12 PM
Analogcabin, you've really outdone yourself. Whoring yourself out with promises of NAKED PICTURES OF KOBE BRYANT'S ACCUSER, your empty threats to post NAKED PICTURES OF JESSICA LYNCH, and your flirting with the idea of posting the alleged PARIS HILTON SEX TAPE.
Where does it end with you? What is it that you think you know, the POLICY ISSUES OF WESLEY CLARK? Or maybe you claim that you have proof that KARL ROVE IS THE DEVIL.
Whatever it is, I know you don't have OSAMA BIN LADEN'S TELEPHONE NUMBER or SADDAM HUSSEIN'S HOME ADDRESS.
You're pathetic.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Pardon the Non Sequitur, B-b-b-but...
Posted by Sue @ 12:58 PM
It's hard to follow up an Art Carney hoax (yeah, you heard me right. Art's not dead. He's playing a trick on all your asses) but I thought I'd post this interesting article.
Apparently, the article is actually based on our own beloved Analogcabin. The publication has changed the names, blogs, etc. However, the story really did happen to Analogcabin back in the 9th grade. The blog in question was a literary outlet for 'Cabin's obsession for masturbating to Whitesnake videos. You can imagine his horror when "maman" found out.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
A Shout Out to My Homie on Another Astral Plane
Posted by Shakti Mann @ 6:20 PM
I just wanna give it up for Art....
Permalink |
-------------------------
Bought and Sold
Posted by Analogcabin @ 12:13 PM
In the interest of not being sued and having to move to Cyprus (notice the segway, boys, and I'm not talking about a rechargeable dorkmover,) I've agreed to post the below links for Sue's brother... let's call him "Joe." Joe claims to be doing some kind of experiment, though I can really explain what it might be.
I can't say I'm doing this without some consternation, however, as the below sites look strangely like the detritus what gluts my Google when searching for naked pictures of Dr. Atkins or, say, naked pictures of cheap airline stewardesses.
First, enjoy Atkins Diet. When you've had your fill of that, take a trip to Cheap Airline Tickets or Cheap Airfares. Still hungry? Try Atkins or The Atkins Diet on for size, fatty.
God, I feel used.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Magically-Litigious!
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 11:30 AM
As in "Magically-Delicious!"....
Ah, nevermind.
You know, litigation and frivolous lawsuits may have reared their eight ugly hydra heads long ago in America, but luckily, there are still lands and people unspoilt and pure.
Namely, Northern Cyprus, a mystical land where small children climb up on the ruins of old castles and frolic in extremely hazardous conditions, free of security guards, guard-rails, or parental supervision.
Now that's a simpler place and time. That's home.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Monday, November 10, 2003
Put a Suit on an Apple & Teach the World to Sing
Posted by Analogcabin @ 12:00 PM
In mid September I wrote about Apple Records' suit of Apple Computer in my usual confessional, insightful, and perhaps all too revolutionary manner. That piece, in addition the my various articles in the Harvard Law Review and gold album A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, makes me an expert on the subjects of trademark law and hip hop, Barry, so you're in luck.
First, here's some background. Yoko Ono and her Callow, Yellow Minions of Despair have taken up tortious arms against Apple a number of times over the years. In each instance, Apple's settled, rather than engaging in a legal battle that could result in loss of the company's expertly groomed corporate brand. The settlement agreements attempt to outline verboten, or "forbidden," arenas in which Apple Records actively engages in business and out of which Apple Computer must stay under penalty of another lawsuit. The music business, broadly defined, must have seemed a fair place to draw the line in the early 1980's, but Apple's been sued by Apple for both the iPod and the recent online music sales at the iTunes Music Store.
What are we to learn from this? When a trademark is granted protected status, it's based on arenas of business defined as they are today and how they may reasonably be predicted to extend in the future. But one cannot predict how technology might advance with any accuracy. If we could, there'd be no eight track tapes in every thrift store nationwide. As technology advances, so will trademark infringement suits. You simply cannot have one without the other.
That's exactly why Arrested Development can, must, and will defeat Fox in court. Since the early part of the last decade, the technology of "television," specifically of sitcoms, or "situational comedias," has advanced beyond even the wild, nitrous colored dreams of Jules Verne. Couple that with remarkable leaps forward made in the fields of colloquy and cliche, and you've got the recipe for a dreadlocked marching band's worth of consciousness raising rappers that are now prevented from bringing their rizzy into the prime tizzy hizzy of sitcomizzy, fo' sho. I, for one, would hate to see that Jew Murdoch keep them from that.
So inspired by this line of discussion was I that I journeyed to the well-trafficked Arrested Development message boards and posted some thoughts of my own.
In case you're confused, my screen name is "ZionistConspiracy."
Permalink |
-------------------------
Friday, November 07, 2003
The Last Word
Posted by the spencer2000 @ 8:27 PM
As a final nail in the coffin sombody named "tonga" wrote in to the Arrested Development board:
No, you ain't paranoid. Clearly the man got in for AD and Screech. Those Fox executives have to get taught a lesson. Then need to get what they deserve!
People are ridiculous.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Way to Go Barry!
Posted by Sue @ 8:19 PM
Someone pat that man on the back, give him a firm handshake and buy him a cup of coffee. Yeah, don't skimp. Make it a venti.
I'm certain that the boys in Arrested Development are passionate about their case... But I don't think it's assuming too much to think that their passion is seriously clouding their judgement. No doubt there are teams of lawyers who are fueling their crusade, which makes the situation even more sad. The lawyers are likely playing on their passion to keep the band riled up while all the lawyers are thinking is "Vega$." Now there's a perfect example of taking an "un-copywritable" name and making it unique enough to legally protect.
Oh shit. I realized that I said "No doubt" up there in that last paragraph... Gee, I hope Gwen Stefani doesn't come after me for punitive damages based on unauthorized use of her trademarked phrase.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Arrested Development
Posted by Barry @ 7:12 PM
So what follows is a back and forth of myself and Arrested Development fans when I went onto their website yesterday to tell them that the lawsuit they're threatening against Fox is ridiculous. Nothing especially funny or important but sometimes I think people are so friggin stupid. By the way… the guy named "Speech" is the lead singer of Arrested Development and something tells that they guy called "I'm Listening" might be him as well.
-Barry
--------------------------------
Dumtapetrader: Has anybody heard of this new sitcom on Fox?
http://www.fox.com/schedule/2003/ad.htm
Speech: yes, we are in the midst of a suit against Fox for using our name without permission from us. We have put alot of energy and money into maintaining a certain credibility and veiw of that name. I hope all works out for all involved.
Tamiya: Yes, I've heard of that Fox show and I'm pissed. Just wanna say good luck to AD with the suit and everything. Is there anything any of us can do to help?
Dumtapetrader: Good luck AD. Just a word of advice. Don't give in to the $ that they may throw at ya. Stay true. Stay Thirsty!!!
Bkailey: Look... IMHO, this is a bad idea... to sue over the use of a phrase that was in use for several decades now -- long before the band came to be... it's ridiculous.
Arrested Development has been a familiar phrase in the lexicon of English speaking people for many decades. (for those not in the know... Arrested development is a psychological term that means: cessation of the development process at some stage prior to its normal completion.) It's not like the term didn't exist before the band... which is specifically why that term was chosen.
This is NOT like George Lucas suing Rapper Luke Skywalker over the use of that name (since that name was not in existence until Lucas created and licensed it).
This IS like Spike Lee suing SPIKE TV frivolously. They settled, Spike dropped his claim and Spike TV is now called Spike TV. All he really succeeded in doing was getting them to agree to give him some payola and to showcase his work.
As far as the fox sitcom goes... it's about a family man in prison ("Arrested") who somehow manages to flourish there ("Development"). It's a pun. Personally, I never associated the band name with the t.v. show until the lawsuit was reported online.
If the band's goal is to raise some publicity for and perhaps arm twist some money out of Fox... they might succeed there. But it's a mistake to believe there is any more of a claim on using a previously established phrase for a band name than another person/group/company does for a completely different type of product. Hypothetically, it would be like the group R.E.M. suing Paramount if they were coming out with a horror movie about people who die in their sleep. R.E.M was a term in use long before Michael Stipe thought it sounded like a cool name for a band.
For Speech...Get your name out there... make some noise... but don't spend a lot of money on this lawsuit... in the end, it's not in your best interest and you are unfortunately not in the right on this one.
Respectfully,
-Bkailey
I'm Listening: Well Bkailey...let me explain why you are wrong...
take the word "apple"... It's a word that has been around forever, to refer to a piece of fruit, right? But along comes a computer company that says, "Hey we're going to call our company "Apple".... it is at that point when you have a name that becomes a protectable trademark in connection with the service it provides, even when the name "apple" has a generic meaning for something else. If a copy machine company came out with the name Apple copiers...they would be infringing on the Trademark rights of the computer company.
Believe me, if a band came out and called themselves "The Simpsons", Fox would have something to say about that...even though Simpson is a common Proper Name.
Dumtapetrader: Good point! That name belongs to Speech and the crew. There is now doubt that if the tables were turned on Fox they would do the same. What would they do if NBC or CBS created a show called 'Fox' (which has been around a lot longer than 'arrested development)? They would flip!
I just hope that Speech and the crew are not just trying to get there name out there or to get a few bucks in there pocket. Like I said before, they should refuse any money that Fox might throw there way, other than legal fees of course. I believe that AD is better then that so I'm not worrying about that fact.
If this were 1992 Fox wouldn't have dared to think of using AD's name. I think that they forgot that AD was still alive and striving!!!
Go get'm AD! Just show your point and stay honest with yourselves and I'm sure it will all work out.
Bkailey: Your points are logical... but you're still missing the gist of the thing.
"Arrested Development" began as a clinical term... like "carpal tunnel syndrome" or "cardial infarction". It wasn't name created from words that hadn't previously been grouped together... like "Badly Drawn Boy" or created anew for a product like "Swiffer".
If the band "Arrested Development" had changed the spelling to turn it for their own use (like "Arrestud Development" or "A'rested Development") and then Fox created a sitcom with one of those spellings as the title, THEN there would be merit for a case and proper grounds for a suit.
As for your examples... there is no reason there couldn't be a movie or a book or a t.v. show called "Apple". In fact, Fiona Apple could legally drop Fiona from her name and go by "Apple" without worry of a suit from the computer company since the two have nothing to do the each other. Also, it's not really the best example since the word "apple" is just a noun and not a common usage phrase -- so it's not exactly the same kind of situation we're talking about.
The same with "The Simpsons"... it wasn't really a common usage phrase before the t.v. show (even though families with the name exist), but as long as you bring it up, if there were a gospel-singing family (such as Martin Simpson and Jessica Simpson - who also exist) they could most likely tour and put out albums under the name "The Simpsons" if that was in fact, their legal name.
Simply put, the words "arrested development" were already in use before the band existed and CONTINUE to be in use in regards other than the band.
This is a frivolous lawsuit... only people who are already familiar with the band might think it had ANYTHING to do with the band and they would likely discover this assumption to be wrong within the first couple of minutes of the sitcom if they indeed decided to watch it based on that assumption. No harm, no foul.
Like I said before... if this is a reason to get publicity and further name recognition... so be it... but to claim SOLE ownership on something that existed before you decided to use it is just wrong.
Dumtapetrader: This guy must have been sent here directly from Fox. Why else would the only 2 posts that he has here on this SPEECH board be in contrast to the interests of Speech, AD and there fans?
There is a huge differance here than comparing Fiona Apple to Apple computers. If AD's name was just 'Development' and the great guys at Fox decided to come out with a sitcom call 'Arrested Development' I don't think there would be an issue.
There is also a difference between 'Spike TV' and 'Spike Lee.' If the cable channel was called 'Spike Lee TV' then I think there might be an issue. That issue has nothing to do with this one. I don't think there was much basis for that. But plenty here.
Bottom line is, the name belongs to Speech and the crew. The entertainment business has recognized that for 11+ years. Another institution cannot just take that same name fro the title of there source of entertainment. It is just wrong. This is not an issue of using this name in general terms or medical terms. We are talking about using this name as a formal title for someone or something. What there was a sitcom in the '80s called Whitesnake or Poison or Guns & Roses? These are all common names. I'll tell you what would happen---heads would roll. And with good reason. Maybe I'll start a music group and call it 'Peanuts' and I'll be the lead singer dressed up like a white beagel. Those things are all common and have been said and seen long before Charles Shultz was even a thought in he parents minds. But that would be wrong because that name, as a formal title especially in the entertainment business, belongs to him.
Give this obvious Anti-AD spy the boot from the boards. The first comment he ever posted was anti-AD and now his 2nd one is. Smells fishy to me. Looks like Fox is up to even more games than just stealing the name.
Bkailey: Look... I'm not a proxy sent by Fox and I realize that anyone reading this board is going to have an allegiance to Arrested Development (the group).
I just decided to post here because the idea of suing over this name thing got me riled up enough to get passionate about it for a day or so.
Of course, the group and its fans would take issue with the whole name thing... but you have to realize, most likely no one else in the country is going to be confusing the two.
I was just trying to reason, with specific examples, of why this lawsuit is a bad idea and why most that I know that have heard about it (Arrested Development fan's aside) agree that this is a frivolous lawsuit... thus possibly hurting the group and it's image in the longrun.
I've got no real agenda other than being sick and tired of hearing about stuff like this. What if, say, the medical community (i.e. psychologists) sued Speech way back when, saying, "You can't call yourself Arrested Development because that's our name for a psychological state of mind". Ridiculous, right? Well... I'm just trying to point that out.
I'm Listening: Well if the medical community chose to File and Register a Federal Trademark for the Name, as did the musical group, then perhaps your point would be valid...however, that argument is even weak because the services provided by each entity have zero relationship. Fox & Arrested Development are both in the business of entertainment.
David: Sitcoms come and go... this one will too, no matter what happens with the lawsuit. What matters to me is the possibility that this was done intentionally.
I pulled out my AD CD's again this weekend because my youth group at church has recently grown and become pretty racially diverse. That level of human harmony made me so happy I wanted to celebrate with some of my favorite AD tunes. About half way through "3 Years 5 Months 2 Days in the Life of..." I was crying pretty hard, remembering how powerful this music was during my formative college years.
So what did I do? I searched the web just now to find information on AD and what if anything they were doing. What did I get as response to my search? A page full of that stupid sitcom crap.
Does it just happen to be a coincidence that this sitcom is appearing at the same time Speech and AD are warming up their rhythm & strings? I doubt it. What better way to keep us all locked away from healing than to try to bury the group name behind something as silly as a television show-- you know... the junk box, the drug-waves of inactivity?
Maybe I'm just paranoid.
Bkailey: O.k. I give up. I was just trying to speak to reason. I simply do not understand why people think the two cannot co-exist (the band and the sitcom -- which, granted, given the current t.v. seasons offerings, probably won't be around that long).
I did a simple internet search and found many many instances where common phrases were shared (without litigation).
"Cinderella" was a fairy tale character that became a Disney movie and an 80's hair band.
"Dog Eat Dog" - a band name (from a phrase) and the title of an NBC show.
"D.O.A." - a band name (from a phrase) and the title of a Meg Ryan/Dennis Quaid remake.
"Bad Company" - a band name (from a phrase) and a recent Anthony Hopkins/Chris Rock film.
"Six Feet Under" - a band name (from a phrase) and an HBO show.
"Men At Work" - a band name (from a phrase) and a Charlie Sheen/Emilio Estevez movie.
"Chicago" - the band, the stage musical, and then the movie based on the musical.
and although they're not EXACTLY the same... Rolling Stone - the magazine - and The Rolling Stones seem to do allright for themselves and they took their name from a phrase. Also with regard to LIVING COLOUR - the 80's band - and "In Living Color", the Wayans Bros. show, no one seemed to confuse them.
This will be my last post... My motivation in this was that I think people sue for stupid reasons... and to state again something I said before, I truly believe that to claim sole ownership on a PHRASE that was already out there before you decide to use it for yourself is morally wrong.
Permalink |
-------------------------
The Matron: Revelations
Posted by Analogcabin @ 2:02 PM
If there's anything the Spencer can do, it's quote Kicking and Screaming.
The saddest part about the Larry Wachowski sex change situation is not the torment he must feel as a result of his gender confusion. It's not the painful betrayal from which his ex-wife might never recover. And it's not the way the very personal process will be chronicled by the media and mocked by late night talk show hosts and stand up comedians everywhere.
The saddest part is what's going to happen to his penis.
Note: You're probably not going to want to click the above link at work. Or anywhere else, really.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Impressive.
Posted by Sue @ 12:27 PM
Wow. I never thought I'd see the day when The Spencer2K would post not once, but TWICE!
Anyway, I'm assuming that post was a reference to Chicagoan Larry Wachowski and the recent rumours that have been floating around that he's in the process of considering a sex change. Is this correct, TS2K?
Item! I found the article interesting... So is the idea that Larry Wachowski feels that he's really a lesbian and needs to change his sex in order to fulfill his true sexual identity? Or is he just a confused straight guy who has an overzealous fetish for lesbianism? After all, he is dating a female... A dominatrix, no less.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Re: Domi-Matrix
Posted by the spencer2000 @ 11:59 AM
INT: VIDEO PLANET
LARRY:I figured out the ending to my movie. It going to be like Tron meets Lolita. (pause) That'll be cool, we can sit here in the store and watch my movie.
SPENCER2000:Do you really think you'll still be working at a video store after you make a major motion picture
LARRY:Well, maybe not then. (beat) They'll probably put it in "off-beat".
SPENCER2000:Yea, way off-beat.
LARRY:See, you're shocked. And I'm playing with gender roles.
Permalink |
-------------------------
10 Monkey Words
Posted by the spencer2000 @ 11:18 AM
As the Spencer2000 (I, ed.) lay in bed this morning fondling his (my, ed.) robotic penis he (I, ed.) mused, "What is the actual definition of the term 'monkeyshine'?"
He (I, ed.) picked up his (my, ed.) trusty Random House Dictionary and looked it up.
monkeyshine n. usually, monkeyshines. Slang. A trick or mischievous prank; a bit of monkey business.
The Spencer2000 (I, ed.) found nine other compound "monkey" words: monkey bread, monkey business, monkey flower, monkey jacket, monkey nut, monkey pot, monkey puzzle, monkey suit, monkey wrench. Unemployment is bliss.
I am the Spencer2000 <beep>
Permalink |
-------------------------
Domi-Matrix
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 10:59 AM
The gender issues presently conflicting Larry Wachowski are no secret to the Hollywood insiders of Anablogcabin, but to the faithful readers of our site, burried deep underneath their cultural blankets of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee and Natchez, Mississippi, it may come as a shock to find out that one of the creators of the Matrix empire knows not whether (s)he wants to live as a man or a woman.
Recently snapped at The Matrix Revolutions premiere, the photograph below shows that Larry (on the left) is looking quite ladylike, but, you know, actually, not really, but I mean, well, more like a lady than a man should look but, you know, obviously less like a lady than a real lady.
What are we to make of this, and why aren't more people talking about it? Does this provide the intelligentsia and academics who had previously fawned over the Dummy's Guide to Philosophy bullshit of the first films with some more relevant information as they delve deep into the "Matrix" of Larry's mind?
And lastly, it doesn't take a Billy Sumday (read: genius) to see that that picture pretty much sums up why the Wachowski brothers (oops! I meant siblings!) have refused to do any press.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Saffron: [Name of Hollywood Actress Removed at Saffron's Request] Bootlick
Posted by Analogcabin @ 2:49 PM
Though it's difficult to tell, I'm fairly certain Saffron's last post was meant to be insulting.
That's fine, Jimmy. Just fine. Though both the confusion and the revelation in my post were completely genuine, I shouldn't expect you to understand that. The genuine is something you'd know nothing about, cloister there deep within Hollywood's plastic womb, the world filtered through Xanax lenses.
You and your type disgust me.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Analogcabin: Satire's Forgotten Son
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 11:35 AM
Grade school is long behind him, but everywhere Analogcabin goes, in his mind, he's still sitting in the front row of that heedless Buffalo Elementary classroom. Arm raised, teeth clenched, hand and fingers anxiously flapping, like a pigeon caught on some razor wire. "Call on me, please. Oh, please. Just once. Pleeeaasse."
"I'm smart, too."
Permalink |
-------------------------
Saffron: Pianoless Mark Russell, or Just Pianoless?
Posted by Analogcabin @ 8:29 AM
I think we can all agree that I'm not the brightest boy here, but I don't entirely get this bit of satire.
I understand what clothes hangers have to do with abortion (the proverbial tool of the trade,) and I understand that yesterday....
Shit! I just got it! By signing the ban, Bush (and cronies, shown here wielding hangers) are one step closer to making back alley "wire hanger" abortions the norm.
That's a good one.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Let's Go to Work
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 11:20 PM
Permalink |
-------------------------
Saffron: Mediocrity's Advocate
Posted by Analogcabin @ 3:37 PM
First off, Saffron, you're a piss-poor Photoshopping job. How 'bout that?
Second, while I admit I may have falsified evidence slightly, it's only because I didn't want to post the real image of Sue's night at Jumbo's publicly, for you can be seen, in the shadowy background, molesting a young boy.
This is the thanks I get.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 7:58 PM
As if the piss-poor photoshopping wasn't obvious enough, let me expand on the mendacity of the photo in question. Even if that was Sue in the photo, we know for a fact this picture wasn't taken in Jumbo's Clown Room, and we know this because:
1. There are more than four people in the room (fire codes, y'all).
2. The dancers are enjoying themselves.
3. The dancers appear to be women (the dancers at Jumbo's also appear to be women, but it's hardly convincing).
4. There are lights on the roof, suggesting a working electrical system.
How dare you, Analogcabin. Defaming not only one of your colleagues, but Santa Claus as well.
Permalink |
-------------------------
The Picture of Honesty
Posted by Analogcabin @ 6:58 PM
If I'm the one that lies, Sue, how do you explain this picture that clearly shows you frolicking with dancing girls on stage at Jumbo's Clown Room? And in a santa hat, no less. For shame!
Permalink |
-------------------------
Typical.
Posted by Sue @ 4:44 PM
This is so typical of you, Analogcabin. You are the spoiled, unprincipled child who chooses to cheat, lie and connive rather than fess up to his mistakes.
For example, Analogcabin, you've insisted on many occasions that I had frequented "Jumbo's Clown Room" a number of times with you and The Spencer2K when, in actuality, I've never in my life set foot in that particular gentlemen's club.
However, I remain forever proud to know that my dazzling display of theatrical genius that time in Las Vegas when you thought I had accidentally fallen out of bed as I tried to switch on the automatic blinds have you eternally duped into believing that I had actually fallen onto the floor that fateful morning. Yeah, you heard me buddy. It was all an act. But I'll be a man about it and let you revel in your fantastic history believing that the hairy Armenian fell out of bed that morning and it was fucking hilarious because he didn't mean to.
Permalink |
-------------------------
J'Accuse?
Posted by Analogcabin @ 2:19 PM
I find it difficult to believe that you'd change what's clearly "then" to "than" in your post, Sue. Go back and check, America. The proof is in the posting.
I'd say that I'm shocked that you'd stoop to such depths, Sue, but you are Armenian, and I suppose this just proves the old saying true. "If an Armenian tells you it's night time, check your wallet."
Permalink |
-------------------------
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Posted by Sue @ 2:03 PM
Ahem, Analogcabin... While we're on the subject, would you care to fix any spelling errors in the following passage:
"Putting it in quotes is a little something called plagiarism, Sumday, and if that's what passes for an awesome-equitur these days, than I quit."
I believe that was written by you? Huh, Herr "Spelling and Grammar" Hitler? Your assignment for Wednesday is to learn the difference between "There," "They're" and "Their."
How does everyone feel about this? Please... Discuss.
Permalink |
-------------------------
It's "Hemorrhoid" to You (And English Speakers Everywhere)
Posted by Analogcabin @ 1:41 PM
And one thing I've learned is that you never know if "blow job" is going to appear in a book until you look.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Unless You're a Hemerrhoid...
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 12:36 PM
You know what, Cabin, you're right. The quote wasn't from Michael Newton's book, but rather was lifted from T. M. Luhrmann review of his book, first published in the Times Literary Supplement on January 29, 2002. So, I'm sorry if it appeared that that was a quote lifted from the book in the review, when really it was the reviewer's paraphrasing.
What are you, the fuckin' MLA guide?
And do you really think "blow job" is going to be in a book written by a person with an interest in pychiatry and linguistics? Try "fellatio", Sherlock.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Try Blow-Sequitur
Posted by Analogcabin @ 12:28 PM
What I like best about Sumday's delayed reaction rant is that not only was the "single paragraph of mind-blowing relevancy" not crafted by him, it is a complete misquote.
Despite that the mind-blowing paragraph appears in quotation marks, use of Amazon.com's new feature allowing a person to search for a word or phrase within a book tells us that Sumday's paragraph is nothing more than an oversimple summary of author Michael Newton's pages long discussion of Genie's behavior in the hospital. Putting it in quotes is a little something called plagiarism, Sumday, and if that's what passes for an awesome-equitur these days, then I quit.
Incidentally, a search for "blow job" within this book yields no results.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Non-Sequitor? How About AWESOME-EQUITOR?
Posted by Billy Sumday @ 10:47 AM
You accuse me of not playing by the rules. Addressing the issues I see fit, with no regard of the history of posts on the site.
Well, what if I were to tell you, quietly, and with much pause, that I were about to tie together the topics of the last two weeks in a single paragraph of mind-blowing relevancy?
You would say, surely, "Ok."
Perhaps you are familiar with Genie, the most notorious feral child of the 70's, imprisoned by her own father until the age of 13, at which point welfare workers found her, released her, and immediately began testing her like a laboratory rat. Some thought Genie had a mental handicap while others thought her mind had deteriorated as a result of her awful and unstimulating childhood. Regardless, she could never learn to speak in sentences, but she did acquire other skills, as the following excerpt from "Savage Girls and Wild Boys: A History of Feral Children" explains:
"She had lived in the back room of a suburban house, naked, strapped to a potty chair, beaten by her father, abandoned by her frightened mother. In the hospital, she stole, spat, masturbated continually, and she could not speak."
Tards. Feral Children. Masturbation.
I am cold, callous, and shameless; I show no sympathy for those that are less fortunate and flaunt their handicaps on the world's most visited website.
But in spite or because of all this, I have done what has been asked of me. I have found a way, through all odds.
I am the sumday2000
You are the weakest link.
Goodbye.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Monday, November 03, 2003
Shakti, We Hardly Cared....
Posted by Analogcabin @ 1:15 PM
Yeah. Postcards. Whatever.
SUE KISSED A RETARD!
Permalink |
-------------------------
Shakti, We Hardly Knew Ye
Posted by Shakti Mann @ 12:34 PM
Not that I haven't been fascinated by our topic of late, but I have an issue I must bring before The Committee...
In precisely one month's time, I will journey north to Red Feather Lakes, CO, to spend 30 days in retreat. This dathun, or intensive meditation retreat, is one of my many practice requirements for the degree program that I am now working on at my illustrious, unnamed university of Buddhist origin.
As the dathun is a retreat in the strictest sense of the word, it goes without saying that I will be completely withdrawn from the realm of worldly things from the middle of December until the middle of January. This means that my sequestering among the forests and meadows will include no use of the internet.
This raises many questions. What will you all do without me? Who will badger Billy? Who will help Analog goad Saffron into his famously slack-spined fury? Who will rap about prog rock with the Good Reverend? Who will swoon when the Spencer2000 comes to call? Who will giggle at Sue's hilarious, 2-3 line (maximum) posts?
But it's the readers I'm worried about. I don't do this for me. I don't do this for The Committee. I do this for the fans. "It's about the music!"
So, while I'm away, would anyone be interested in having me fire off periodic postcards (one a week?) to Cabin, Saffron, or anyone else? The messages contained in said postcards could then be conveyed across the information super-highway by Committee members who receive them. I can promise nothing about these missives, except that they will brief, hopefully humorous, and leave the reader clamoring for more. (And I will, of course, have a full report upon my return to Boulder.)
We have a month to process here, people....but let me know what you think.
Permalink |
-------------------------
I Accept Your Challenge...
Posted by Sue @ 12:26 PM
...And I will up the ante, at that!
1986. I was 11 years old. 'Twas not merely the thought of the caress of retarded flesh but having actually kissed a mentally challenged female. A subtle, gentle peck on the lips it was... But a kiss, nonetheless.
I am the Sue2000 <beep>
Permalink |
-------------------------
Retardism: Blight or Fetish?
Posted by Analogcabin @ 12:11 PM
Your silence on this issue is deafening, people. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed.
Will you, Sue Zinner, follow Billy Sumday's lead and be man enough to publicly proclaim your long-secret desire to caress retarded flesh? It would require boldness and bravery, to be sure, but I think such stuff is there, laying dormant in your thickly-haired Armenian heart. Awaken the hairy hero within! Or will you, Shakti Mann, shed this Buddhist mask behind which you've hidden unshakeable belief in eugenics? Will you use this forum to unveil your true love -- writing didactic folk songs of the evils of interspecies lovemaking?
It's one side or the other, gentlemen. Do you support Simple Love? It's time you take a stand.
An amusing sidebar to this discussion: It less than a week ago when Shakti sent me an email requesting permission to include Analogcabin in his byline, the same byline that runs with the articles he writes for Buddhist academic journals. I attempted to disuade him, and I think our discussion of retardism as a race is a good example of why.
Permalink |
-------------------------
