home authors guest shorts graphical shorts
Gerald sat with his fly down, his meat somewhere between flacid and firm.
You're gonna have to try a little harder. He thought. He didn't dare say anything. Tina was licking her little heart out and she was a good secretary. It was all in his head probably. The cliche of the situation was ruining it for him.
He parted the miniblinds and looked into the cubicle pool. Accountant... Paralegal... Water girl... Kahill's overweight wife... He let the blinds fall shut and sighed. There was no water girl. He'd made it up. He longed for the days of water girls.
Tina was staring up at him. His dick was a shrivelled coil of skin. "Baby?" she asked. He petted her head affectionately, tucking in as he did so. "We'll try again later, yes?" She nodded cautiously, he noticed a twitch in her brow. Was that a tear? Oh my. Sometimes it was all too much.
Date Written: May 07, 2005Comments:
Average Vote: 3.8889
05/16/2005 qualcomm (3): solid three
05/16/2005 Will Disney (4): you know i'd say 3.5. nice "tone".
05/16/2005 TheBuyer (4): Good one!
05/16/2005 The Rid (4): Great tone.
05/16/2005 Klause Muppet (4): Enjoyed!
05/16/2005 Mr. Pony (4): Quality fucking tone.
05/16/2005 Klause Muppet: Hey, check out the tone on this one!
05/16/2005 Turgid (4): "Oh my."
05/16/2005 Jawbreaker (4): This is one of my favorites during the awesome Guest Month.
05/16/2005 Jon Matza (4): Tailed off a bit...still, to me this seemed to operate on a higher level of discourse/intelligence/wit than other recent offerings. First sentence is pretty butter portioner, in my estimation.
05/16/2005 qualcomm: you are all experiencing bad short goggles
05/16/2005 Jon Matza: When will I learn not to view shorts through the goggles I'm experiencing?
05/16/2005 qualcomm: when you unstuff your cunt
05/16/2005 Jon Matza: Brother, when you use language of that sort it ruffles the necktie of sadness I'm experiencing.
05/16/2005 qualcomm: how do you manage to convey that pompous, george lucas-like smirk without emoticons?
05/16/2005 Jon Matza: Which one of us is lecturing the community here, brother? ;)
05/18/2005 qualcomm: as i was going to reply on the 16th before i was rudely interrupted, i didn't accuse you of lecturing the community. i said you were coming off as pompous. in general, lately. my use of "experiencing" here was intentional and within the established qualcomm tradition (see "experiencing error" in my 2/17/2005 5:15:28 PM comment; also consult your own memory banks/sensors). to paraphrase you in your brookline argument with ewan, goddamn you for making me explain this. what's with this martinet persona of yours recently? (see your weird and watery attack on me for offhandedly using the term "sucks shit" last week, as if i had intended that phrase to be a devastating putdown, rather than a synonym for no good. and yes, "good job," as you used it, is a more barren-wombed comment, since your intention was to be humorous/sarcastic, whereas my intention with "sucks shit" was just a flat value judgment. not that it matters, because you seem to have (purposely?) misunderstood that i was joking with you: my attack on "good job" was meant to show you how easy it is to poke around in anybody's comments to find overused idioms/cliches. if you find one in a short, that's one thing, but jesus.)
your intention with all this nonsense seems to be misdirection: discussing the style of comments/message board posts rather than their substance. it'd be one thing if i repeatedly made embarrassing/stupid/erroneous comments. but your nitpicking of late comes off in the same exact way as someone correcting, say, anybody in our circle of friends, on the proper use of "me" versus "i" -- thanks for the refresher, but we all know that stuff already, and would appreciate being extended the benefit of the doubt.
05/18/2005 anonymous: Whence.
05/18/2005 qualcomm: i don't understand
05/18/2005 qualcomm: and don't pretend you don't care, matza, because i know you do.
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: Just saw this!
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: Pretend how? Don't pretend I don't care about what?
05/18/2005 qualcomm: i know you do
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: What am I pretending I don't care about? And how am I pretending? You are deranged.
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: You just want me to respond, is that it?
05/18/2005 qualcomm: i just want you to stop pretending
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: OK I'll stop pretending if you stop making comments like "you are all experiencing bad short goggles" and "sucks shit".
05/18/2005 qualcomm: see, now you're pretending again. it's so gay.
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: For such a substantive fellow, you can't seem to identify what I'm supposedly pretending! Maybe if you repeat it again...
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: p.s. You use too many adjectives when you argue.
05/18/2005 qualcomm: your ironic distance is as convincing as ever. i'll take all this as a plea of no contest.
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: ?
05/18/2005 qualcomm: .
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: When was I being ironic or distant? I was serious about everything I said, including your adjectivitis.
05/18/2005 qualcomm: and i was seriously inquiring why you're acting the martinet lately.
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: Is that a serious question or in the same 'unfounded accusation that gets dropped after it's been refuted' category as "now you're pretending again", "your ironic distance...", "you're pretending", etc? If so, I'm willing to respond to it.
05/18/2005 scoop: my badgering you about "pretending" was a joke, you pain(you seemed to get this at 4:42, so i don't know why you're now treating it as a serious accusation). just as "experiencing short goggles" was an intentionally
awkward wording. but go ahead and stick to your guns on both of those. it's important in an argument to never give an inch. re ironic distance, i was serious: you seem to be evading my long-ass comment from 1:26.
05/18/2005 qualcomm: (that was i)
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: 1) Me never give an inch? Do you think you do?
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: 2) "you seemed to get this at 4:42": then why didn't you just say, "yes, that's what I meant?"
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: 3) You assumed, and implied, I was evading your post before I even saw it.
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: 4) I began treating it--"pretending"--as a serious accusation when you kept repeating it and wouldn't just say, "yes I was looking for a response."
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: 'experience error' is hardly the same echelon of intentional awkwardness as 'experience sunglasses'. But I guess it was one of my "habitual misreads".
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: Sorry, that was 5)
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: 6) I have some work, then am taking a dinner break, but will respond to the longer posting later. For the sake of acme & good fellowship, I'll try to do so in good faith-- i.e. in hopes of reaching an accord rather than further exacerbating qc-'za tensions. That's the kind of guy this guy is.
05/18/2005 Jon Matza: Sorry, lovers of qc-Matza debates: got swamped here at work...will have to respond laytor.
05/19/2005 qualcomm: 1) perhaps not 2) because at the time, i thought you were in on the joke. i thought we were bantering, and you were composing a response to my long post in the meantime. 3) as i indicated, i was joking. i was referencing a sticking point in a previous argument of ours, regarding the tactic of pretending not to care about an argument one is involved in. 4) as i just indicated in point 2, i thought you were joking along with me. i realized you probably weren't with your 5:00:55 PM post. 5) if by "echelon" you mean caliber, i agree that "experiencing error" is better than "experiencing short goggles." if you mean that they are not in the same category of "joke," i disagree with you; they're both awkward misuses of the same word. but anyway, that's sort of irrelevant: my intention was to make an awkward construction with "experiencing short goggles," and you decided to misread it as an actual mistake, allowing you to score an easy point. you should have known it was intentional because you know me well enough to guess that i wouldn't make such a rudimentary error. (that is, you know my english comprehension exceeds that of a 3rd grader.) as you would say, what a sleazy tactic.
05/19/2005 Jon Matza: All I can say is, that latest post seems full of deliberately provocative, baiting language, brother. It hardly seems in the spirit of reconciliation, good fellowship or site lustre that our site fathers envisioned! I'm tempted to answer/weigh in on your anti-'za charges, believe me--but don't see the upside of another blowout. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last round ended in mutual frustration/distrust, followed by a qc-'za cold war of sorts, and gave rise to an unequalled outpouring of universal disgust & embarrassment among guests and other authors alike. Therefore, I suggest debating these pressing issues in person, drunk, sooner than later, rather than trying to sort them out here.