Article: 178467 of talk.bizarre
From: (the stark fist of retribution)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,comp.bugs.misc
Subject: Re: Countdown To QUALITY
Date: 1 Dec 1994 08:36:55 -0000
Organization: the fog
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <3bk1v7$>
References: <>
Status: O

In article <>,
Andrew Solberg <> wrote:
>December 1 is Fail To Suck Day.  For that entire day, post only your
>absolute *best* and *brightest*.  Be original, creative, and utterly
>amusing.  Devastate us with your wit.  Baffle us with your insights.
>Stun us with your grammatical ability.
>No follow-ups.  No flames.  No cross-posts.  Just the GOOD STUFF.

although i actually have nothing of particular
interest to say, i feel it my duty as a frequent
poster of follow-ups and flames to speak in defense 
of those of us who are wise enough to know that 
while our prose is not necessarily deathless, the 
thoughts of those who have gone before us, no matter 
how banal, may be an ideal springboard from which to 
launch an entertaining and painstakingly crafted
digression; indeed, i feel compelled to mention
that i am actually somewhat offended by your assertion
that followups, flames, and the like, are all without
worth, since i have spent nearly seven years honing
these arts to the keenest edge my humble ability can
aspire to, and i must admit i occasionally feel a
small measure of pride at my efforts, despite the
fact that they are couched in a guise some choose
to dismiss out of hand:  for instance, you may have
noticed that i am now on the eighteenth line of this
sentence, with no end in sight, which i believe
merits some notice, considering that i have not yet
violated any significant rules of grammar other than
the commonly-taught guideline against the use of 
run-on sentences -- an art which i feel has been
sadly abused, and which ought, in my opinion, to
be considered a legitimate art form in its own right,
despite the long centuries of unwarranted disdain
that have been heaped upon it by the academic
community, an establishment with whose overall 
arrogance and lack of vision i have frequently
found it necessary to take issue, especially in
the matter of its insistence upon forcing its
innocent young victims to read perfectly odious
works by such so-called writers as Hemingway and
Faulkner, neither of whom could have realistically
hoped to succeed in writing their respective ways
out of a soggy wax-paper bag such as the ones in
which one's chow mein noodles are often provided
when one orders egg drop soup to go from the take-
out chinese place on the corner, and in fact, 
whose deaths have, i feel, been nothing less than
a boon to society, and could only have been 
surpassed in their beneficence had both writers'
entire works and all published versions thereof 
been interred with them at the time of burial; we 
frequently see writing nearly as lackluster here 
in talk.bizarre that fulfills none of the arbitrary 
criteria by which you so unfairly choose judge the 
quality of a post, and which often, in fact, lays 
(dubious) claim to originality, despite the obvious
cognitive deficiencies displayed by its authors.

surely you see my point.


hey rocky, watch me pull an elephant out of my hat!
skeleton rattle your mouldy leg
all men s lovers come to this