home authors guest shorts graphical shorts
Welcome to the future, folks! Here in 2043, weíve made all sorts of exciting technological advances. And if youíre lucky, youíll live long enough to see them for yourselves.
Take the area of nutrition. Back in your day, there were literally millions of hungry or starving people. Why? People you lacked the technology to process human and animal waste into edible food material using bio-engineered tapeworms!
Take a look at this bank of brain-dead pigs we are using as hosts. Each of these lovely ladies is implanted with a GM tapeworm and then force fed, via tube, human and animal excrement, meat processing waste materials (carcasses!), and other unusable organic material (dirt). The tapeworms process this material and store it as fat, and then when it's time for a citizen to have lunchÖ
[inserts hand into pig. removes tapeworm.]
Voila Ė instant nutrition!
For those of you who have sampled demercurized salmon, youíll notice the taste of these pig-hosted tapeworms is not so different.
[takes another bite]
So thatís what itís like living in the future. Unfortunately some things arenít so much better. Like prostate cancer Ė thatís way worse than it was back in 2005. Practically every guy gets it these days.
Anyway, those are some things for you to look forward to.
Date Written: June 09, 2005Comments:
Author: Will Disney
Average Vote: 2.91667
06/10/2005 Will Disney: Author, you have your character take *two* bites of the tapeworm. Does this mean he really likes it? Maybe this future you describe is not really so bad?
06/10/2005 The Rid: I'll tell you, the prostate cancer joke had me laughing a lot.
06/10/2005 TheBuyer: Does demercurized salmon taste like shit?
06/10/2005 anonymous: Yes?
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: I didn't care for this, but I applaud the author's willingness to hold his/her work up for public scrutiny in these lean times...and will therefore withhold my 2.5 stars!
06/10/2005 TheBuyer: I like the 1978 Burger King Training video tone. Yes I do.
06/10/2005 TheBuyer (4): Here are some stars for you.
06/10/2005 qualcomm (2): here are two stars, author. while i applaud your willingness to hold up your work during these lean times, i won't insult you by pretending this doesn't suck, or giving you a miss. you're welcome, dicknut.
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: Who's pretending it doesn't suck? (Besides the author, I mean.)
06/10/2005 qualcomm: i would be, if i didn't two it.
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: Too bad we don't have other ways to express our opinion besides stars. If only (for example) Disney implemented functionality that allowed us to respond to shorts with language...
06/10/2005 anonymous: Well, I appreciate the feedback! I don't think that it sucks, and I'm suprised at the strong negative reaction from you two. It is a little different from your typical Acme fare, but I think it makes for an interesting and somewhat amusing read. What do you think sucks about it so much?
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: Looks like I was wrong about the aughthuor...
06/10/2005 TheBuyer: Ya, me too. Corrected. Credits pending.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: the more shorts that we vote on, matza, the more honest/true the entire star system becomes. i think it's especially important to vote during these lean times - we don't want to encourage bad content simply because we need something up on the front page. also, if you paid more careful attention to the language of my original comment, you'd see that i included the phrase "or by giving you a miss." ie, not voting on the short would be somewhat insulting to the author, like giving a girl four strikes. i know you think you're doing him a favor, but you're actually implying he has a vagina.
06/10/2005 anonymous: Why is this bad content?
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: I'm going to have to think about what I object to here, precisely. Will answer later from work...
06/10/2005 anonymous: Okay.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: author: first of all, the idea of a gross, soylent green-like world food solution is as old as soylent green. second, the narrator's vaudevillian stage patter is another ancient comedy device, and you've done nothing original with it that i can see. i'unno what else to say - there are no actual jokes in here, it seems - just that one gross idea. and the prostate cancer thing at the end, which just seems like an uninteresting tangent (is it supposed to be related to the diet of tapeworms -- not sure that'd make it any funnier, just wondering.).
06/10/2005 TheBuyer: The style saves the content. He's not really saying funny things he's saying things funny. I think I ripped off Milton Berle just there, but whatever, it works here.
06/10/2005 anonymous: qualcomm, your points are taken. The tone of the speaker was an ERROR, and should have been a few notches lower in the first 2/3 of the short. However, the prostate cancer thing is a good gag. It is, in my opinion, overly harsh to say this Short "sucks" or is "bad content".
06/10/2005 qualcomm: as i indicated, the style is old and unoriginal.
06/10/2005 Klause Muppet: I agree with the silliness but this provoked no laughter from me.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: why is the prostate cancer thing a good gag? that is, what does it mean exactly? maybe sucks is an overstatement. subpar, though. i'unno, put it this way - if i came to acme as a first time customer and i saw this short, i'd be none too impressed with the site.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: the author's 12:49 comment originally ended with an exclamation point, and now it's a period. only one man has that kind of power...
06/10/2005 anonymous: Well, qualcomm, I'm sorry you think so. Maybe this one was a stinker. But maybe it's also possible to discourage "bad content" without discouraging content in general. I'll point you to Matza's comment initial comment, in which states he doesn't like the short, and I'll compare it with yours, in which you call me a dicknut and tells me this short sucks. I'd suggest that part of the reason the queue is empty is because of this kind of ad hominem attack, which is unnecessary. Do you want comments disabled for glossary entries? Are you still sore about that? I'M SORRY LET'S BE FRIENDS AGAIN!
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: No wonder I gave up on Acme.
06/10/2005 anonymous: I'm not against the disabling of voting for glossary entries, but I think the comments should stay...
06/10/2005 anonymous: No wonder because this short is bad, you mean?
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: Yes. Sorry dude. Hate to attack your hominem or whatever, but this short blows.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: author, if i'd given you five stars and called you a dicknut, i bet you wouldn't mind so much. it's the vote you're complaining about. also, matza later agreed with me that the short "sucks".
another small reason the queue is empty is because i, qualcomm, get discouraged when i see what i think are crappy shorts getting the same or better ratings as efforts of my own that i believe are better (ie, communism). we all have our reasons for not submitting right now, that is. but you got a lot of nerve blaming the site's most prolific author for an empty queue.
06/10/2005 anonymous: Okay - points taken.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: also, i believe the proper terminology here is ad muppetem
06/10/2005 qualcomm: i don't mind comments in glossary items so much. what bothered me is: 1) your taking pony's side because it's fun to see me get angry; and 2) the idea that one can't control the glossary definition and comments for glossary items of your own invention. eg, i should have last word/total control over the entry for qualcomm or the lerpa, pony should have control over the pony entry, etc. of course, there'll be tons of items that have no clear owner. these would be free for alls.
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: This may be obsolete by now, but...
Brother, we could have a reasonable discussion about the question of whether numerical voting is important and why, if that's what you want. I honestly didn't think I was insulting the author or treating him like a girl by withholding my vote--this certainly wasn't my intention, and I have yet to be persuaded by your arguments that this is what I'm in fact doing, or that a numerical vote "means" more than a spoken opinion. (Author, did you feel like I was infantilizing you by withholding my vote? Were you insulted? Are you more interested in getting my thoughtful reaction to what you wrote or my numerical rating?) In short I suspect you (qc) are just trying to pick a fight with me. Why, brother? What's with the contemptuous, baiting tone? Are we not friends? Do you really trust my motives so little? [Matza collapses into antique upholstered chair and fans brow]
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: I'll tell you, the prostate cancer joke had me laughing a lot.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: Just joking.
06/10/2005 anonymous: qualcomm, I believe you did not like this short, but were also looking to pick a fight with me. Well, it worked. I really wish you hadn't. As for you, Snow, that was a cheap shot. We all have hits and misses on this site, except for those of us, like you, who quit.
06/10/2005 anonymous: The same goes for you, Dylan. Would you guys please do me a favor and lay off?
06/10/2005 anonymous: I think Danko was making fun of The Rid.
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: Dude, sorry. Didn't mean to be cheap or nothing. Yes, everybody has hits and misses. I was just stating my opinion that this is a miss. Forgive me, forgive me.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: matza, most of my comments have been directed toward the author, not you, except where i am answering your questions. anyway, whether the author thinks you're treating him like a girl is irrelevant - of course he's going to say no. i, qualcomm, think it's just silly to withhold a vote as a "gift" to the author. it may even be beyond silly. it may be a lesser version of over-voting/highballing. withholding your honest 2.5 means stupid votes, like the buyer's four, will count more. so, in effect, you are overvoting for this short.
and, i wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, really. my initial comment was directed at both you and the buyer, and it wasn't meant to be all that mean-spirited. "pretending this doesn't suck" was far more weighted toward the buyer (with his four stars) than you, by the way. "giving it a miss" was the more matza-aimed portion of the comment.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: author, i had no idea who wrote this until i saw that exclamation point disappear.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: Yes anon a. Is this Disney??
06/10/2005 anonymous: well then, qualcomm, i stand corrected again.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: also, author, i think you're joking, or pretending to be insulted to stir up site activity.
06/10/2005 anonymous: Incorrect, unfortunately!
06/10/2005 qualcomm: also, matza: i think numerical votes do "mean" more than comments. would you rather get a two star vote with the comment "Good effort" or a five star vote with "Your mother's cunt smells like carpet cleaner, you stupid fucking jerk"? i'd take the latter. i think most would. stars are acme's version of putting your money where your mouth is. and we all know that money doesn't talk, it swears.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: I believe QC is right regarding the author's tactics. This in no way makes the author less of a homo.
06/10/2005 TheBuyer: qualcomm, my first instinct was a middle ground, gentlemanly three but these Disney shorts take a while to warm up in the morning and I've pinned a two star vote to at least one of his that I made my mind up on too soon. I'm not pretending this is good, I'm saying I like it. You might be right though, author, you owe me a half a star. Also a sandwich.
06/10/2005 anonymous: Hey, that is interesting TheBuyer. Does anyone else besides me think that Rid's an ass hole?
06/10/2005 anonymous: Ass hole? Rid? Yes!
06/10/2005 anonymous: Big ass hole.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: I think The Rid is an important part of the acme community, anon-a. If you stop hiding I'll tell you what I really think.
06/10/2005 anonymous: Don't want to invoke Rid-Wrath.
06/10/2005 anonymous: Danko, I was actually genuinely worked up there for a bit. However, now I'm now back to my muppety, even-handed self.
06/10/2005 anonymous: The Rid is one of two people who understood how truly great this short is! Thank you rid!
06/10/2005 The Rid (3.5): Laughs is laughs, you know?
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: What can I do to make you still angry at QC?
06/10/2005 anonymous: GOD BLESS YOU THE RID!
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: Sorry for the longwinded response, acme-participants. DO NOT READ.
QC: first, your concern with the integrity of voting puzzles me after those recent bad faith votes, br'r. Can you comment on this...
As I see it, commenting on/taking the trouble to articulate one's response to a short without voting on it is a long way from 'giving it a miss'. As a matter of fact, I see comment-free numerical votes as more worthless (not that plenty of comments aren't sub-worthless filler). But to me a judgment with no explanation seems more shameful/dishonorable than a response without a judgement. I'm here for the conversation/humor/intellectual interest, and to get thoughtful/"challenging" reactions to my "work", not for the gamesmanship, as much as you seem to doubt my motives. (As for the choice you offered below, which I just saw, I'd rather have neither. What I'd want is intelligent, thoughful, thorough commentary). Your implications aside, there are countless other reasons besides coddling that I don't vote on given shorts (some of which I've explored in detail--see discussion on your brother's recent vag short.)
Also, I'm also puzzled as to why you and Scoop seem recurringly, passionately (to put it nicely) preoccupied with my, Matza's, not voting when it--not voting--is such a widespread practice, often indulged in by you yourselves. Do you realize you almost exclusively attack me, Matza, for this supposed offense? Ever thought about why? I can take it, but I don't understand why you aren't furious about all the authors who don't contribute or comment regularly. Your intensity about the topic, and the way you single me out for this supposed offense strikes me as ridiculous. Seriously. It makes me assume you're on the lookout for a pretense to attack me and--I mean this neutrally, though you probably won't believe it--makes it hard for me to take you seriously on this topic. But I'm sorry--sincerely--my not voting aggravates you so much & am open to being persuaded that it's as important as you assert.
06/10/2005 The Rid: Thank you, author!
06/10/2005 Mr. Pony: This is really neat--Either qualcomm or Matza is overvaluing the act of voting--BUT I CAN'T TELL WHICH ONE OF THEM IS DOING IT!!
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: As I've said many times since the early days of acme, I'd be just as happy with no voting, period.
06/10/2005 The Rid: Hi, Danko!
06/10/2005 qualcomm: matza, i don't think i really "attacked" you here. all i said in my first comment were MY reasons for not giving the short a vote-miss. seems reasonable, considering you had just made a show of doing the opposite. regarding the importance of voting, your non-answer answer to my question is bothersome. i was asking you if you HAD to choose between the two. it's irrelevant that in real life you don't/shouldn't have to choose - the point of the exercise is to see which of the two is worth more to you. (yes i know you'd rather not put a bullet in either your wife's or your best friend's head, but being forced to make the choice might tell us something about which person you value more. uh?) to make the exercise more poignant, let's say for the sake of argument that the two-star vote's comment is worthwhile and thoughtful, but let's ratchet it down to a one star job.
i know you don't always give shorts a vote-miss for coddling reasons; i never claimed you did. sometimes it's just hard to pick a number, i know. but in this case, you yourself stated that you thought it was a 2.5, and seemed to be specifically withholding your vote to be nice. is that a misread?
one more point, if i may: there's kind of an inherent contradiction in your stance that comments mean as much or more than votes. if that's the case, if votes aren't such a big deal, why not just vote on this short? your withholding a vote gives these stars more value/importance than you think they deserve. ie, if the grenade is a dud anyway, why not throw it?
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: MATZA! Don't answer that! It's a trap!
06/10/2005 qualcomm: my recent bad-faith votes were done out of anger, and in a spirit of protest. i'd become so annoyed by what i saw as overvoting and erroneous voting, i figured, "fuck it. the way people vote on acme, these stars are meaningless anyway." that's what i was thinking. i wanted someone to pick a fight with me over my votes so i could say this, but no one did.
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: Oh, wait, my mistake. No, go ahead and answer that. Or I will: "Um, cuz there's no point? Or cuz maybe it's got a high resale value, and might as well hang onto it?"
06/10/2005 qualcomm: the point is, we all know that stars aren't dud grenades. they mean something. and so does withholding them.
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: oh, yeah
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: Does withholding a vote mean as much as withholding a comment?
06/10/2005 qualcomm: depends on the circumstances. i often "withhold" a comment out of laziness. i don't think anyone withholds votes out of laziness.
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: I withhold votes out of consternation, disappointment, shame, fear, hatred, regret and loneliness. I withhold comments out of drunkenness, stinginess, contrition and ambidextrousness.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: you mean lack of ambidextrousness?
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: oh, yeah.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: But because of the way people vote - according to you - the stars are meaningless. Moreover, this has been a pet peave of yours for ages so the votes haven't meant anything in ages. SO they are in fact duds!
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: peeve
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: whom
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: For one thing, I don't necessarily see 'being nice' as the same in every case as telling the author he has a vau'dgge'heina-dina.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: yeah, the whole vagina thing was kind of facetious. i was deliberately overstating my case for humorous effect. i just mean that withholding a vote for niceness' sake implies the author can't take the truth, that he needs the coddling. i guess it could imply other stuff, too, but none of it is very "good for the site," you ask me.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: Matza, do you in general withhold votes for niceness sake and were you doing it here? Honest question, b'urra.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: Forget it. I just scrolled down.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: dylan, i don't think the votes are duds because people, including myself, still get worked up by low votes.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: And you, in particluar, get worked up by high votes.
06/10/2005 Litcube (2.5): Aoughthougher: There's some charm to it, and I enjoyed the cancer joke. However, I'm not a big fan of this short. It didn't do a lot for me. Your other works are, by far, superior to this piece, which I feel might have been whipped up in a frenzy to avoid an empty stage. Thereís sometimes love in the ache which honesty metes.
I think Qualcomm may have a point with some of the voting as of late (since Guest Month closed). While I wouldn't go so far as to call us select few a gaggle of wanton easy-to-please voters, I can see how it could be argued that some of these votes can be considered slightly Monty Hall and that The Balance may not be in check.
That said, I can appreciate Matzaís withheld 2.5. Itís been said that these are lean times [crisis, more like], so why canít it be considered gentlemanly when we acquiesce with this era in an attempt to alleviate some of the pressure? I feel gentleman have their place here, and in either case The Balance will restore itself.
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: But your example seems far from the point to me. In it, neither the vote or comment is worth much because in both cases both the vote AND the comment are mere value judgements without any accompanying evidence, thought or reasoning to back them up/explain them. However, here's an (admittedly rare) example of a short in which I was more grateful for the low voter (Snow's) response because it amounted to a lucid, carefully reasoned viewpoint that actually engaged the material. Not that I minded the plaudits, but none were as useful to me ('za) as an ARTIST.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: well, either way, the votes aren't duds. what's your point, that this is a pet peeve of mine? i've already said it is. that's why i bring it up a lot. that doesn't mean the points i'm making are wrong.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: last comment was to danko, by the way
06/10/2005 qualcomm: matza, in my latest comment to you, i said, "to make the exercise more poignant, let's say for the sake of argument that the two-star vote's comment is worthwhile and thoughtful." whatever, you seem to have answered that particular question of mine anyway with your linked example. but, how do you answer the other arguments?
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: But if I was implying the author couldn't take the truth I wouldn't have told him I didn't care for his (execrable, worst in acme history) short, or that I thought it was only worth 2.5 sidereal units!
06/10/2005 qualcomm: so what is your reason for withholding the vote then?
06/10/2005 qualcomm: (that is, i can read what your reason was, but what do you hope to accomplish by withholding the vote)
06/10/2005 qualcomm: i take back my contention that you answered the first question by the way. i think you're sort of dodging it.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: litcube - i'm not saying it shouldn't be considered "gentlemanly" (ie, nice) to withhold a vote in these troubled times. i'm just questioning whether it's advisable.
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: But I gave my reason right up front. I was rewarding the huagh~t'iouhuerrre (via withholding the punitive 2.5) for writing a short, period.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: see 4:30 comment. also, how do you answer the argument that a withheld low vote is the same as an overvote? it's mathematical, guy.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: QC, you seem to be under siege. I'll provide you with answers, in secretum.
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: "i'm just questioning whether it's advisable": if this were really "just" what you were doing, you'd say, "Matza: I would like to question whether your practice of non-voting is advisable". I fear that it leads to etc. Instead of 'the you are coddling/implying the author has a vuaueoudgeina' inflammatory, assumption-laden approach. Brother, I know you aren't one for politeness...but I bet if you voiced your objections in the 'I would like to question' tone as opposed to the usual manner (e.g., innuendos and full-on attacks ascribing the worst motives to your suspected miscreant) it'd result in actual, meaningful dialogue about those things that enchafen your pituitary. Not that these attacks aren't often funny, mind you. Am thinking about the other stuff...
06/10/2005 qualcomm: i'm still waiting for answers to most of my points.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: ok, posted that before i saw your post
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: I'd say that in a content deficit, it seems to me more important to encourage production via gentlemanly leniency. If it was WW2 you wouldn't tell the guy with the meat pushcart how much his sirloin sucked, would you? What if he didn't come back? How would you eat you loin-burg?
06/10/2005 qualcomm: also, i'm not going to phrase my comments in that gay-ass way you suggested.
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: Also, I still don't think you've offered convincing reasons about why voting matters so much. I mean you've shown that votes 'matter' in the sense that they have the capacity to wound a brother or make him/her feel good, but not why this in itself is meaningful, or as important as commenting about the content of a short and/or exploring one's reaction to it.
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: Anything other than an all-out assault seems to be 'gay ass' to you, brother. Why is this?
06/10/2005 qualcomm: but you claimed below that you DID in fact tell him his loinburg sucked. you said there was no difference between your comment and a vote. therefore, you must think that votes somehow count more than comments, at least in other people's minds, if not yours.
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: No sir, what I did was the equivalent of putting my arm around the vendor and saying, "Brother, though we both know good meat is hard to come by these days and normally I would refuse to pay for such cunty meat as this, I am nonetheless going to accept your, foul rancid meat...indeed I will express gratitude for your efforts in providing me with this disgusting meat during these these tragic, war-stricken times."
06/10/2005 qualcomm: how has this has been an "all-out assault" upon you? i think i've been pretty even tempered with you, if a little facetious in some of my responses.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: well, what i did was take the vendor aside and say, "hey this rancid meat made my whole family sick! i'm going to put a grade D ribbon on it so that others won't get sick too. man, i wish someone had put a ribbon on there for me, before my family and i got all sick!"
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: I don't just mean this particulo discussion, 'ther.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: but you do mean this one, right?
06/10/2005 qualcomm: i mean, look at my first comment. it's hardly an all-out frontal assault. it's quite flanky and good-natured, actually. you've been overreacting to me all day.
06/10/2005 Wartime Meat Vendor: You both have a point. qualcomm fights off customers who are perfectly happy with my meats. And Matza, he steals my meats.
06/10/2005 TheBuyer: here
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: Note: Matza, 6/10/2005 4:49:30 PM: "innuendos and full-on attacks".
"i won't insult you by pretending this doesn't suck, or giving you a miss" is 'good natured'? That seems like a stretch. How and where else did I overreact, brother? Also, why haven't you yet explained what's so important about voting, what's so terrible about not voting, why you seem to repeatedly attack me in particular for it, why you don't just voice your objections neutrally, why it's defensible to give a low vote with no comment, etc? I'm trying to have this discussion in good faith. Are you?
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: [Matza oversalts putrid, decomposing meat to disguise taste, chokes it down].
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: What I have to say is very important. I would rather look at a short with comments and no votes than votes and no comments! Cheers! I would also like to say that while QC's idiotic, vainglorious notion of his own righteousness and his general nastiness continue to frustrate the more beneficent members of acme, myself especially, I believe Matza has misinterpreted his tone today. I except all form of brown liquor in payment.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: dude, you're the one who hasn't answered anything. as usual, you just answer the parts of an argument that suit you. 1) i explained why not voting is the same as undervoting, and asked you to reply. you ignored that. 2) you haven't answered whether you'd prefer a substantive comment + a bad vote, or a good vote and an insult comment (your example of one time when you appreciated a bad vote + substantive comment isn't an answer; it's an example of this one time when you appreciated a bad vote + substantive comment). 3) you also never answered my most compelling point: "the inherent contradiction in your stance that comments mean as much or more than votes. if that's the case, if votes aren't such a big deal, why not just vote on this short? your withholding a vote gives these stars more value/importance than you think they deserve. ie, if the grenade is a dud anyway, why not throw it?"
06/10/2005 qualcomm: as to your questions:
1) How and where else did I overreact, brother? - everywhere below where you say i'm attacking you and trying to pick a fight. you also said my tone was contemptuous. that's in your mind, buddy.
2) why haven't you yet explained what's so important about voting - votes represent what the acme community thinks of a short in one easy number. the more people who vote, the more the vote accurately reflects acme's opinion. think of it like a zagat overall rating - yes you're going to read the full review, but that number is the first thing you check out.
3) what's so terrible about not voting - as stated above, the more acmeans vote for a short, the more the vote reflects the "truth" of the entire community's opinion.
4) why you seem to repeatedly attack me in particular for it [not voting] - i'd have to answer that on a case-by-case basis. probably because in most cases i suspect your motive is what i consider to be a misguided kindness (see why votes and voting are important, above).
5) why you don't just voice your objections neutrally - because i don't feel like it. and you generally don't voice your opinions neutrally when it comes to stuff that bugs you, either. so shut up about this already.
6) why it's defensible to give a low vote with no comment - why isn't it defensible? if the author asks for an explanation, i give one. often, i give one without being asked, too. did you ask me this earlier? i can't find it.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: geez, you're frustrated by my attitude, dylan? i hope it doesn't affect your output! i'm sure i'm not alone in saying that i'd really miss your prodigious contributions to the site.
06/10/2005 qualcomm: by the way, matza, that first line of mine you quoted? yeah, it's not all that good-natured, but the object of the attack is the author, not you. you're so fucking paranoid.
06/10/2005 anonymous: qualcomm's need to be right never ceases to amaze. If he were an actor, he'd do musical theater, I reckon.
06/10/2005 TheBuyer: That's a great example of a 'chicken and the egg problem':
Does a person click the anon box because they make idiotic comments, or does clicking the anon box turn a person into an idiot? Either way there's an idiot and a box.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: But he's right about musical theatre.
06/10/2005 Dylan Danko: SOMEONE TELL QUALCOMM HE'S NOT ALONE OR I'M LEAVING!
06/10/2005 Jon Matza: My response here...
06/11/2005 Benny Maniacs (3): The idea wasn't one of Disney's best. I give it a B-/C+. Hi Disney!
06/11/2005 Will Disney: Hi benny. Thanks for the 3.
07/1/2005 scoop (2.5): I guess deep down there buried amid all that Jim Henson designed fur beats a wet, drippy emotion-registering organ. I hope this 2.5 makes it twitch a little bit.
07/18/2005 The Rid: Hey, who was anon_a, anyway? As much as I'll regret it, I'd like to know what Danko really thinks of me.
07/18/2005 Mr. Pony: Well, didn't Danko agree with anon_a minutes later? Still later, anon_a tried to suggest that he or she was scoop in disguise, but I sure have a hard time believing that.
07/18/2005 The Rid: Well, he wrote that he thought I was an imprtant part of Acme - probably because everyone needs someone to hate - but then he wrote if anon_a stopped hiding, he'd write what he really thought, which is likely that I suck. I'm just guessing. Pardon me, Pony, I woke vaguely, uh, uneasy today.
07/18/2005 Will Disney: Hey Rid how is your brain? Back at the office yet?
07/18/2005 The Rid: "How is your brain?" Not sure I want to answer that one! But I'm having an MRI on Saturday to find out. As of now, I'll go back to work sometime in mid to late August.
07/18/2005 Will Disney: best of luck...