home authors guest shorts graphical shorts


At first William Warren didn't understand what Todd Tanner meant by "Bring your rubber hole." Even once he realized Tanner was referring to his new gal Patti Pepsi he was still confused. On one hand, the old quarry was a special meeting place only trusted people got invited to, so the guys must've liked Patti. But calling her things like "your rubber hole", "your slampiece" and "your slug pussy slut" seemed disrespectful and, he had to admit, bothered him. For one thing, she didn't belong to him; she was her own person. For another, why call a nice girl he was sweet on by such vulgar names?


Inspector Welsh stroked his massive biceps thoughtfully. Judging by the bloated state of the corpses they must have been decomposing in the gassy swamp for two weeks or more. At first glance it looked like a lovers' suicide pact. But two details gave Welsh pause: the tiny cod lodged under each of the boy's eyelids and the words "homo fuckual" tattood on his penis. What could it mean? Welsh scratched his head like an ape, a perplexed expression on his face. To further emphasize his puzzlement he gave an exaggerated shrug and spread his hands out to the sides. Just then his glance fell on a scrap of newspaper. On it the words "Arbor Day" had been circled in red. Arbor Day...trees...leaves...LEAVES! A light bulb slowly flickered to life above his head, then died out again.


Two towns over The Killer was brilliantining his hair back in a cheap motel room. He could remember back when the motel had been a hotel. Well, things changed, didn't they? The luxurious poplin curtains parted in the breeze just as the (lunar) eclipse was coming to an end; as a result his newly polished black pointy boots gleamed ever more brightly in the moonlight until they achieved a creamy sheen. Time to strike again!


"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust..." The speed and virtuosity of Bishop McMalmsteen's sermon left the mourners breathless with grief and awe. McMalmsteen nodded at the undertaker, and the town wept in unison as the handsomely matching his n' hers coffins descended into the big, fat hole. McMalmsteen's faith felt stretched to breaking point. Why hadst the brief candle of these two young lovers been snuffed out so early? It was incomprehensible. Where was God? He hurled his bishop's hat, also known as a miter, onto the ground in a burst of petulant, effeminate anger. This action seemed to galvanize the mourners, who began to blaspheme their maker, shaking their fists at the sky and descrying His works.


Up in heaven God fumed impotently, aching to retaliate to the mortals' provocations. Owing to His supposed abuse of powers (killing two especially annoying kids off), His administrative privileges had been revoked by Big God. The unfairness factor was unbelievable! These cunts didn't know how to take a joke--so naturally He was getting punished.

Date Written: August 09, 2004
Author: Jon Matza
Average Vote: 4.33333

08/11/2004 qualcomm (4): this is quite ambitious, like a long stephen king novel compressed into a short. i think the inside joke at the end is a mistake. i want to give this a five for scope. but the execution is a bit boring and the style is lacklustre.
08/11/2004 Will Disney (5): I wasn't so sure at first but I also admire the scope and the detective stuff was funny
08/11/2004 Mr. Pony (5): Summer's right--the style could use a little pick-me-up. I do feel that while the "administrative privileges" joke may fall a little flat on this audience, but I think outside this little pond, it could easily receive a great big laugh, followed by long moments of contemplation. That, along with the care taken to really flesh out each of the characters in the space alloted, is enough to kick it up to a 4.7 for me.
08/11/2004 qualcomm: i thought that in this audience the admin joke would be understood appreciated, while in the outside world, no one other than "webbies" would really enjoy, or possibly even get, the joke.
08/11/2004 qualcomm: also, i believe this is a danko offering.
08/11/2004 qualcomm: wait, i changed my mind. a quick short search revealed that disney has used the *** divider device several times.
08/11/2004 Mr. Pony: It's not about the *admin_privileges*, it's about God's boss reprimanding him.
08/11/2004 Ewan Snow (4):
08/11/2004 TheBuyer (5):
08/11/2004 Jon Matza: Undecided on this one...will bestow incisive commentary upon the author/community at unspecified later time.
08/11/2004 TheBuyer: This short reminds me of the time Q was stripped of his omnipotence for behaviour unbecoming of the Continue-um. Ka'Pla!
08/11/2004 TheBuyer: author, this short seems subtley 'inside' from start to finish; all the characters in this short seem vaguely familiar or have certain familiar characteristiscs not just in the last graph. Was that intentional, or am I seeing things that aren't there?
08/11/2004 anonymous: If by "intentional" you mean "on purpose", the Buyer, then isn't your question really more of a conditional statement?
08/11/2004 TheBuyer: I suppose it is.
08/11/2004 TheBuyer: The reason I asked is because I think it reads funny both ways but I'm not sure it was written with that specific an audience in mind because I'm not 'inside'.
08/11/2004 anonymous: You can't trick me with your epistemological inversions, the Buyer. Whether you drink, freeze or boil water it's still just H20.
08/11/2004 TheBuyer: I tend to project my need to urinate onto dogs as well, but that actually seems to work. I'm going to claim advantage just for planting the seed.
08/11/2004 anonymous: You are? How about for responding to my last two intentionally nonsensical comments as if you understood them?
08/11/2004 John Slocum (3): I find the compression impressive, but this doesn't float my boat. The joke at the end would be better, in or not, if it made better sense.
08/11/2004 John Slocum: with the rest of the short, that is.
08/11/2004 scoop (5): I think this thing dared to dream, and for that it deserves five stars. Granted the inside joke at the end is annoying and clumsily drags me out of this otherwise well-placed thriller of a short. Great sturucture, gets us in the scenes nice and late. I didn't mind the tone the way Messrs. Pony and Sausage did. In fact, I thought the lack of a distinguished, vocie led to the cinematic flavor of this bad boy. And while the last joke is a disappointment this thing is crammed with other jokes along the way that make-up for it, IMHO, cunt holes.
08/11/2004 scoop: Slocum, why are you so dreadfully wrong?
08/12/2004 Mr. Pony: Cinematic?
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: sorry I was at a play, Jon Matza, not avoiding a response. I googled 'epistemological' and thought you were suggesting that I was projecting a self-made environment on something that had nothing to with anything but itself and then tried to further the argument with that weird water thing to somehow further that meta-thing argument because I asked the exact same question twice. I brushed off your, 'conditional statement' garbage and repeated the question. I thought you were going over my head and trying to avoid answering with really obcsure double-talk, so I tried to deflect it and ask again.
I talk to people who do this all the time to avoid answering questions, it's not unique. Normally the best way to handle this type of debtor is to deflect or ignore their trash and re-pose the same question in simpler language. I thought you were trying to make me look like an idiot, but in a different way. You picked a long word that actually means something that at a stretch could somehow relate to the question and may have made me look like an idiot, but mostly just proved that you are an asshole. That's why I replied to your bullshit comments now go vote on my fucking shorts and pretend you're sportsman enough to leave it on the field. Asshole.
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: I missed some stuff, and you know how much I love to post things[yay!] so if I haven't sufficiently explained myself, please just holler!
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: Oh, right I completely forgot to go back to this; so was the whole thing an inside joke enjoyable by outsiders or just the last bit?delete second 'further' replace with 'support'
08/12/2004 John Slocum: Dreadfully?
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: Would have answered this sooner but I was sleeping, then I got up, went to the store, bought some milk and made some coffee. Isn't that interesting?
The true answer, the Buyer (hopefully after I answer this I will no longer be your "debtor"), is that here and elsewhere on the site there is a whole network of insider activity that you have no access to, no understanding of and no connection to. Communications between members take place through various encoded words, phrases and signals appearing within our shorts and our comments, and are also hidden within the the coding of the site itself. Being part of this secret network is infinitely more fun and exciting than the overt going-on on the site, and those who are not part of it get ridiculed and talked about endlessly. Most of this talk is about you, in fact. There is endless, obsessive discussion of you and speculation of what you are like as a person. You would hardly believe some of the things that have been said about you!
I'll tell you something else...if you are able to crack the code, it's possible, just possible, that you would be considered for membership in this select, elite group.
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: It was just a question Jon Matza, a polite "how could you be so stupidly wrong, you festering little shit" would have sufficed. I bought a new hood, can I start coming to meetings?
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: Your first sentence is ok, if dishonest (it was "just" a question you asked three times and felt placed me in your debt), but in true buyer style you ruined it with one too many jokes, dragging down the discourse with the blurted out, witless " I bought a new hood" piece of petulant sarcasm.
08/12/2004 qualcomm: isn't it true, matza, that you're being unnecessarily aggressive towards thebuyer, from your initial refusal to answer his perfectly reasonable question, to your ongoing campaign of proving yourself more intelligent than he? ISN'T IT??!
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: That petulance you're sensing has got to be coming from your inner monologue because that 'witless' comment matches perfectly with your suggestion that I'm paranoid about what's going on back-stage; You're thinking of Texxx, that was his issue not mine. As for being in my debt - I was drawing a parallel because you were reacting like a cagey debtor for reasons unexplained other than to make me look stupid. I'm not suggesting you owe me anything, but if you didn't feel that the onus was on you to provide an answer to a question, why did you answer it at all? You placed yourself in my debt, no one held a gun to your head.
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: You're right, the buyer. I was wrong to question your perfect comment. Your psychological penetration is astonishing! The petulance I thought I imagined on your part (e.g., "That's why I replied to your bullshit comments now go vote on my fucking shorts and pretend you're sportsman enough to leave it on the field. Asshole") is in fact a "projection" that is either self-generated or applies to someone else and, in either case, doesn't exist, which is why I couldn't easily pull half a dozen examples of petulance towards me and others from your comments in the last week. Also, I apologize for making you look stupid by forcing you to pretend you understood my gibberish. Here, again, I have unwittingly placed myself in your debt.
OSS: maybe, but it isn't to prove myself more intelligent. It's because I find the buyer genuinely annoying.
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: You were talking about the 'hood' comment, not comments from the last seven days. It wasn't a perfect comment it was perfectly matched to your reply. The only thing consistant in your comments today is that you continue to come off like a sarcastic asshole.
08/12/2004 Dylan Danko: Ok guys, WHO WANTS TO SEE MY WEE WEE??!!
08/12/2004 scoop: At a point in evey Wee-Wee's life it has to take a look at its own soul and see it as it really is -- a Gay American Wee-Wee.
08/12/2004 qualcomm: both of you assholes (scoop, danko) stop trying to defuse this argument.
08/12/2004 Dylan Danko: Ok, howzabout you play with my ash-hole instead?
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: I guess what you mean is that substance of it was on topic. Clearly, in the Buyer's world of wishful thinking this makes it "perfectly matched", however bereft of wit, quality, linguistic caliber, etc. It must be nice living in a world where such considerations are irrelevant; it saves you the trouble of having to think about/be careful about what you're saying. In the meantime, the evidence is piled up all over the site that you are indeed highly petulant and (as I have been implying throughout this episode) profoundly preoccupied in an unseemly way with your desire for insider status. Hence your irritating knowing tone and the intrigues you delight in & talk about with ridiculously dramatic self-importance (e.g. the IP address "controversy", the Snack Bar/Stash "controversy", etc). You remind me of a British boss I once had who tried (also ineptly) to be abusive/consdescending to those he considered inferior and ingratiating to those he considered above him. And yes, also of Texxx for many reasons, the most recent being that he inevitably retreated into the "you're such an asshole" "argument".
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: "the substance"
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: You're jumping around a lot, get back to the topic of the day please, try to stick to comments made on this short during this conversation i.e keep it on the field.
That hood comment came from a message board post that Snow wrote back then. Something like, "and don't forget your hood this time" in response to Texxx, I didn't come up with it.
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: Your increasingly muddled syntax is betraying you, the Buyer. But still you got something out quickly, and therefore, in the wishful thinking world of the buyer, saved face. Anyhow, it was silly of me not to realize you'd proclaimed this to be "topic of the day" and I apologize for expecting you to juggle multiple ideas simultaneously. But remind me, how I not on topic here? Read it again. If it helps your comprehension you can move your lips as you read.
08/12/2004 qualcomm: matza, while i find your attacks on thebuyer funny, they are also uncalled for and insane. most of his petulance has been in response to these attacks, a reaction you shouldn't find too surprising. as i stated before, i don't think his initial question to you was out of line, and i buy his excuse for answering your inane philoso-babble the way he did. ok, so the canuck talks a little too much. but, in light of your labeling me a "sociopath" for my mock-insult of danko, and your tut-tutting ewan for his earnest attack on lewis, what am i to think? are brooklyners alone deserving of respect and good manners?
08/12/2004 Cooper Green: Matza, are you this big an asshole in person? Do you volunteer your lofty assessment to everyone who annoys you? If so, Iím surprised you havenít been murdered yet. Iíd like to see you face to face with TheBuyer, because I suspect you would be far more respectful of him than youíre being these forums. I also suspect that you would have a higher opinion of him than the one you seem to find so impossible to conceal on Acme. You are unlikely to take my advice, but if you did, here is what Iíd suggest: unless there is even the slightest chance it might do some good, keep your caustic opinions of Acme contributors to yourself and stop pissing on people. All those postcards will go to waste if you continue to chase from Acme anyone you donít happen to like.
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: OSS: How dare you, etc. To illustrate my big heart, politeness, respectfulness and likability I'll overlook your startling contradiction (you're both a victim of my insane attacks and live in Brooklyn (or did you mean Brookline?)) I admit I set a trap for the buyer, whose perpetual, self-congratulatory claims & implications that he "gets it" I've always regarded with annoyance & skepticism. Indeed his question about this short, and insistence on getting an answer, seem to come from a neurotic fear of not getting it, or rather being seen as not getting it. So to test my hypothesis that he's full of shit and have a laugh I thought I'd see if he'd bite at my nonsense. Re my point about TB's witless & petulant condescdension/abuse to those he considers it safe to attack here's a recent example ("Dude, you can't anon_vote, if you want to deuce me, have your mommy set you up with a user name and password then you can give me two stars. K, sweetie?)". Re Snow's attacks on Lewis: seems a bit disingenuous to refer to them as merely 'earnest'.
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: I'm not going to defend myself further, Jon Matza, my points have been made and backed up with my previous comments, I suggest you re-read them now that you're not more busy thinking up responses than reading mine.
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: whoa. I went away and did my job there for a while, had no idea this all was going on.
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: CG: I posted my latest before reading your comment. WHO ARE YOU AND HOW DARE YOU DEFY ME? Seriously: no, I'm not so outspoken in person, in fact you'll find me quite harmless & unconfrontational. Anyhow, you may be right...you're not the first to have accused me of wrecking the site. Though I must point out it hasn't died yet.
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: OK, Buyer, I'll reread the discussion to find all the strong points you made that I missed. In the meantime, in all seriousness I urge you to seek out some other tactic than consdescension. You lack the composure and temperament to pull it off.
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: p.s. I'm hurt that no one noticed--or commented on, anyhow--the sweet McMalmstten joke in this short.
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: In all seriousness Jon Matza, blow it out your ass, your capricious bullshit is really boring the hell out of me.
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: That was the unkindest cut of all, the buyer. I can't believe you would say that.
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: Hey, that's a pretty good TheBuyer impression, do Jack Benny!
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: How was it a buyer impression? It wasn't self-congratulatory, grandiose, self-pitying and/or filled with phony slang.
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: ...ingratiating, petulant, knowing...
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: ...or indistinguishable from a Texxx comment.
08/12/2004 qualcomm: i meant brookLINers. my error.
08/12/2004 TheBuyer: Right, now that I'm not pissed off, I'll elaborate. You really go out of your way to be a jerk, Jon Matza, but if you're right about my petulent whateverthefuck, please prove it or stop talking about it. I think you're a complete prick but have tried to keep it to myself and more or less stay out of your way when I could after that initial One Star I layed on one of your shorts for again, being a prick [the comment on the rate was "fuckwad" if I remember correctly]. Also, please back the following quote up with some evidence, your overall impression of me seems to be stained by something that isn't there, I want to know why. The following quote is a good example:

"I admit I set a trap for the buyer, whose perpetual, self-congratulatory claims & implications that he "gets it" I've always regarded with annoyance & skepticism. Indeed his question about this short, and insistence on getting an answer, seem to come from a neurotic fear of not getting it, or rather being seen as not getting it."

In fact, please back this exact statement up with some quotes because I honestly have no idea what the hell you are talking about here. You know? Like, I don't get it? Maybe you've noticed that when I don't get something I say so, and then ask a question about it. Happens quite a bit actually, you should be able to spot a few instances while you're digging up that other stuff.

Here's another bad assumption:

"Anyhow, it was silly of me not to realize you'd proclaimed this to be "topic of the day" and I apologize for expecting you to juggle multiple ideas simultaneously."

You jumped from a conversation that started on this short into my overall persona on the site pretty much out of the blue. This is what I meant by "keep it on the field." I wasn't saying "this is the topic the acme community should be focusing on" I was suggesting that you were bringing up points that didn't have a goddamn thing to do with what we were talking about at the time.

"Clearly, in the Buyer's world of wishful thinking this makes it "perfectly matched", however bereft of wit, quality, linguistic caliber, etc."

I'm very direct and wasn't trying to be witty. It was right on topic and fit right in, matched up, fell into place with, etc. the preceeding comment.

"the most recent being that he inevitably retreated into the "you're such an asshole" "argument"."

Dude, you're acting like a total asshole, that's where that comes from, eh.

Take your time, I'll be at the laundromat, then I have to pick up some mail from my old apartment.

last word, asshole
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: It's a relief to know you're not pissed off any more, the buyer. That explains how you're able to come up with neutral, measured and not-boring-at-all statements like "I think you're a complete prick", "you're acting like a total asshole" etc. Congrats on being such a straight shooter, though.
Don't have time to respond to the substance of this now but will do so in near future.
08/12/2004 Cooper Green: Matza: I finished work, ferried home, had dinner, took the dog for a pee, and finally had a chance to see your response. I see that I'm following TheBuyer in disliking you, but that can't be helped. You brushed me off. It is not credible that you could expect such excellence from guests who contribute to this site, and yet be content to observe that Acme "hasn't died yet". To me , that sounds like hollow justification for mistreating people. I also believe that your being "harmless and nonconfrontational" in person, but so adept at being completely caustic and hateful in the forums ... and I mean absolutely skilled at zeroing in on a weakness, opening wounds and taking pleasure in watching them bleed ... says troubling things about your true character. You are a sniper. You don't want this site to grow, you simply want it for yourself, the way it was. Before you lay waste to anyone else, maybe you should have a frank discussion with your friends about your real intent, and be open to the idea of either leaving Acme for a while, or simply closing the site to guests. You might not like me either (I'm pompous, remember?), but that doesn't mean I'm actually the idiot you think I am.
08/12/2004 Jon Matza: p.s. "I'm not going to defend myself further, Jon Matza"
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: Can't you people give me a moment's peace? I don't remember calling you pompous or our past run-ins, CG, I'll have to take a look. Your tone & statements here seem reasonable & not pompous, though, and certainly more fun/challenging to respond to than the buyer's latest posting. Will try to answer you in due course...
In the meantime, Re "It is not credible that you could expect such excellence from guests who contribute to this site, and yet be content to observe that Acme "hasn't died yet": I don't get this point at all. Seriously. Can you rephrase?
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: p.s. I never thought/assumed you were an idiot, either...
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: Tiddlycove!!!
08/13/2004 Cooper Green: How many people have you called pompous? I was Tiddlycove then, and it's all right there in the Latest Controversy. Now why not give TheBuyer a moment's peace, and maybe yours will follow.
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: Speaking of which, surely this is heated enough to be made the latest controversy. DISNEY!!
more later...
08/13/2004 TheBuyer: I'm also telling you to defend your statements. And ya, Jon Matza, I'm not that pissed off so read those comments in a nice, measured tone. Except the parts where I've quoted you, those are read foppish. Use lots and lots of quotes and examples; do your homework, but try to be quick about it, I hate to wait. Do a lot of research. I have 41 shorts, quote them too. Overwhelm me with material because so far you're coming off with lot's of mockery and conjecture, but no real substance.
Acme is better without you, this should prove it.
I'm challenging you to be as hard me as you possibly can, I'm calling you out. Use resources, pick up the phone and call people who are familiar with the site and get some testimonials that will back up your argument, for real this time. Get really nasty for a change, Jon Matza, you've been holding back, I can tell. Hurry up though, everybody is waiting.
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: Hey everyone, the Buyer's calling me out. He means business this time. He's laid down the challenge in no holds barred language. Etc.
You are a walking sweat act, the buyer. And a drama queen, to boot. Do you think this humorless, self-important posting furthers your cause? Are you joking with your macho tone and your list of commands? And let me get this straight. You don't like to be kept waiting, and you imagine the whole site awaits my response with bated breath...and at the same time you demand(!) a well-researched catalog of quotes pulled from your shorts (what point you think I'd be trying to support by quoting your shorts I can't imagine), as well as a series of testimonials gathered from phone interviews. Do you expect me to take this preposterousness seriously? You think it's important to me that you don't like to wait? Of course you haven't even addressed the evidence I've already provided...but that's neither here nor there. Logic and meaning don't matter here, do they? If you keep proclaiming victory and acting self-confident maybe nobody will notice. Meanwhile even your sympathizers acknowledge I've "laid waste" to you. However, in due course, I'm willing to poke around for some more examples & point out some of the flaws and evasions in your previous post, along with responding to Cooper Green (who, if you were smart, you'd let do you arguing for you).
In short, get off the stage! You are an embarrassment to Canada.
08/13/2004 TheBuyer: Either concede and shut up, or provide some backup to your "claims" I'm still bored. I'm not joking, fuckwad, prove your case, you still haven't done a damn thing but spout bullshit. I made it clear, can you deliver or is this it? Get on with it already, hypocrite.
08/13/2004 scoop: Hey, good morning fellas!
08/13/2004 scoop: I was once acquainted with a young man named Hippo Creet, a strange fellow was he!
08/13/2004 Mr. Pony: Hi, scoop! Gosh, you were up late! I hope you're not sleeping through Charmed! I'll try to tape it for you. Anyway, I think that during any Acme argument, the parties should take the time (every couple of hours or so) to reiterate their main points (briefly, in, say, 30 words or less), so the argument stays on track, and so spectators can better understand what is going on. Also (and I know this isn't the case with you guys) sometimes people continue to argue long after they have unwittingly come to a compromise, just so they can "win". Thanks, and I wish you both the best of luck!
08/13/2004 Ewan Snow: Buyer, I just got off the phone with Matza. He said you were just like Texxx. Matza, I just IM'd The Buyer, and he said you were a real asshole, just like Frankenlenny. What do you guys have to say about that? Pretty interesting, huh?
08/13/2004 Ewan Snow: For the record, I'm going to line up with the WH Monolith on this one and agree with OSS. While the buyer does make bad jokes sometimes and, I think, tries to make too many jokes, I think he's one of the best guests acme's ever had. (And by guest, I mean somebody who we don't actually know.) As for his interest in knowing what's going on and wondering if things are "inside" that he's missing, I see it as ordinary fandom. Heís an actual fan of acme shorts, and perhaps the only one! Heís tried hard to get into the spirit of it, has written a few decent shorts, and I donít think he should be criticized for his interest. Further, while he has sometimes adopted the requisite acme tone of hostility and rudeness by posting nasty comments, he has certainly done so less than most of us. In general, he strikes me as rather affable. And as he said below, when he doesnít understand something (because itís an inside joke or not) he seems to ask genuinely. Now I thought his original question below was odd and misguided, but the way you paint it as part of a sinister pattern of his paranoid assumptions of secret insider goings-on is paranoid in itself. Matza, are you sure that The Buyer is petulant? Are your sarcastic and condescending comments to him below not petulant?

Now Cooper Green is another genuine guest, and seems to be a bright guy, has written some funny shorts, etc. He brings up an interesting point: if you donít like guys like Buyer commenting on your shorts or hanging around the site, do you really want guests at all? Considering all the retards out there, Iíd say, CG, TB and their friends north of the border are as smart and funny as any guests we could hope to get. Who, exactly, do you expect to read/join/participate in acme shorts? Now, I personally would be fine with the whole site being private, as Iíve said many times. There are so many retards out there who would quickly ruin the site if it became popular. I just donít think our Canadian friends are among them.
08/13/2004 TheBuyer: Mr. Pony: The argument so far
Jon Matza says TheBuyer:
- is constantly petulent all the time
- is genuinely annoying
- profoundly preoccupied in an unseemly way with a desire for insider status
- uses an irritating knowing tone
- delights in & talks about intrigues with ridiculously dramatic self-importance
- makes perpetual, self-congratulatory claims & implications that he "gets it"
- has a neurotic fear of not getting it, or rather being seen as not getting it
- is full of shit
- uses witless & petulant condescdension to attack users he feels are safe targets but lacks the composure and temperament to pull it off
- self-congratulatory, grandiose, self-pitying and/or makeks comments filled with phony slang
- makes comments indistinguishable from Texxx comments
- is a walking sweat act
- is a drama queen
- is self-important
- an embarrassment to Canada

TheBuyer says Jon Matza:
- is acting like a total asshole for no reason
- is attacking him because he feels he is a safe target
08/13/2004 TheBuyer: Thank you, Ewan Snow!
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: OK, for starters, Re petulance:
To me, Snow, this signifies pissy, peevish, sneering, hurt-feelings rhetoric...blurted out insults empty of humor or style. The difference is that however annoyed I may get I don't resort to the foot stamping outbursts and FrankSlappyTexxx quality "dillweed/your mother's a whore" style rhetoric that make for such exhausting and distasteful reading. In contrast, Buyer's come out so far with the following gems in this argument alone:
"I think you're a complete prick"
"you're acting like a total asshole"
"That's why I replied to your bullshit comments now go vote on my fucking shorts and pretend you're sportsman enough to leave it on the field. Asshole."
"The only thing consistant in your comments today is that you continue to come off like a sarcastic asshole."
"I'm not joking, fuckwad, prove your case, you still haven't done a damn thing but spout bullshit."
I also pointed out another recent petulant buyerism he's chosen to disregard so far: "Dude, you can't anon_vote, if you want to deuce me, have your mommy set you up with a user name and password then you can give me two stars. K, sweetie?"
There are many, many more out there. How many do I need to cite? I'm sure TB has an excuse for all of them. Does he have an excuse for lowering the level of discourse?
08/13/2004 anonymous: +..............the buyer is soooooooooooooooo cute
08/13/2004 Dylan Danko: Fuck you! Fuck ME? No, Fuck you! ME? Fuck me? NO, FUCK YOU!
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: Re "perpetual, self-congratulatory claims & implications that you get it"; here's a list of instances where the buyer "gets it", as he hastens to point out: here here here here
Of course, this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the insider posturing. 3/4 of the voluminous words pouring out of Buyer's mouth seem to be in some kind of ersatz easygoing, familiar slang, ya know? I'm gonna deuce ya, buddy! Sorry guys, was gonna respond to this but had an appointment with Jack Daniels! K? And there's the other unresponded-to point I made about the Buyer's dramatic self-importance re the IP address & Snack Bar/Stash incident. We take your point, Thebuyer: you are one happening guy.
Another related point not yet addressed:
Matza: If by "intentional" you mean "on purpose", the Buyer, then isn't your question really more of a conditional statement?
TheBuyer: I suppose it is.
TheBuyer: (later, referring to above) "...I brushed off your, 'conditional statement' garbage..."
How, the buyer? By agreeing with it? (i.e., pretending you got it?) If you brushed off anything, it was your getting exposed as a bullshit artist.
08/13/2004 qualcomm: matza, almost all of your examples of his petulance are in response to your attacks. therefore, using them as examples of petulance while trying to defend your attacks is a bit circular. sort of a "two for flinching argument". second, your examples of self-congratulatory statements of comprehension aren't all there either; the first was meant as a joke, far as i can tell, the second is hardly self-congratulatory (it's more an admission of slowness, because he didn't get the short at first), the third and fourth are is fairly legit, but if you look at the comment threads, there was a lot of talk about people not getting those two shorts. what do you have to say for yourself??????
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: Are you playing dumb, the buyer? The point isn't whether you really get those shorts, you creamsicle. The point is that you seem to endlessly make a point of publicly proclaiming that you get them. OK, OK, we understand: we have a savvy fellow on our hands. He's clued in. This guy gets it.
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: OSS: the preceding partially answers your question, hopefully. Re circular reasoning: who cares if it's in response to my attacks? I'm not forcing the buyer to respond with peevish, witless replies.
08/13/2004 Ewan Snow: Hey, wait, Matza, why did you address that last comment to the buyer? Weren't you responding to OSS? Or not?
08/13/2004 Ewan Snow: Ah, I see.
08/13/2004 TheBuyer: Check those links again, Jon Matza, I still get those shorts. I get the one Pix wrote because I was there and I get the other one's because they are gettable, are you saying they aren't gettable and that I'm pretending to understand them?

How, the buyer? By agreeing with it? (i.e., pretending you got it?) If you brushed off anything, it was your getting exposed as a bullshit artist.

Yes. e.g. "The bank screwed me and I have no job, they are bad."
"Yes, I suppose you're right. When will you be clearing this debt." That's how.

As for using a familiar tone - so what?

Re:petulance - I want to make sure you know exactly what I think of you. If that's petulance, I'm petulant and you're still an asshole, fuckwad, prick, etc...

I am "lowering the tone of discourse" because I'm comfortable communicating in plain language. Asshole.
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: Hey everyone, the buyer still gets it!
08/13/2004 scoop: TheBuyer, Matza: If you two spent the enrgy you have been expending attacking one another, and instead channeled it in to killing the poor, imagine what a brighter world we'd be living in today!
08/13/2004 qualcomm: thebuyer: please don't interrupt me the next time i'm defending you. you self-incriminated. a man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer.
08/13/2004 TheBuyer: sorry, unintentional. i'm typing between phone calls, had the comment window open the whole time
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: And I would have made this comment sooner, but I was at a play.
08/13/2004 scoop: Did it totally suck?
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: I dunno...mighta but I can't be too sure, was paying more attention to the flask on my hip...jesus fuck do I have a hangover!
08/13/2004 Dylan Danko: You still have that flask?
08/13/2004 Pix: The play was excellent btw. Good laughs.
08/13/2004 TheBuyer: Jon Matza, you've elaborated on some of the points of you have made but not all of them, are you finished or just taking a break? I'm still waiting.
08/13/2004 TheBuyer: Also, thank you for continuing to prove mine found below in point form for easy reading.
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: Oh, you're still waiting, the buyer? In the meantime why not address one of the many unanswered points I've made, e.g. 8/13/2004 1:53:30 PM. Or respond to OSS' 2:52:20 PM observation that you implicated yourself with your previous posting? Or explain why your admission that you lower the tone of discourse doesn't bother you or make you think twice/question your contributions? Or account for the embarrassing drama queen IP address and Stash-Snack Bar intrigues you still haven't acknowledged? You expect me to waste my time reiterating what I've already said, hunting down still more examples to illustrate my points? When you haven't addressed adequately or at all any of the above? You meringue-eating, smiley face t-shirt wearing simpleton.
A few other points in the meantime:
There's nothing wrong with a familiar tone if it's natural or you can pull it off. Maybe in real life it translates in your case. Here it doesn't. In your case it strikes me as hypercontrived, a constant struggle to come across as an easygoing, regular guy. Unfortunately, you aren't, as the hypersensitivity and drama queen intrigues and outbursts attest.
As far as the single "point" you've made, which you cling to like a teddy bear for comfort, has it escaped your notice that I don't seem to care if I am or am acting like an asshole? Unlike you, my purpose here isn't to prove to everyone at every moment what a fantastic guy I am, by making ad nauseam references to my offline activities, overusing slang, bragging about my drinking habits, and so on. I'm interested in maintaining a high level of wit, humor and good writing on acme, and keeping interesting discussions free from the blather of self-congratulatory self-promoters in love with the sound of their own voices. I'm also interested in maintaining an atmosphere of intellectual freedom, not a PC writer's workshop choked with politeness.
In short, you are a neurotic, Texx-like glutton for punishment.
08/13/2004 qualcomm: life is a pretty sweet fruit
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: I forgot one key point: the Buyer is a spaz.
08/13/2004 Litcube (4): >cough<
08/13/2004 TheBuyer:
That's was a truly nasty comment, I am now going to revert back to my goodnaturedness and stop swearing at you. I think that this argument had been coming for sometime, and I'd been avoiding it, and probably should have shut up a long time ago. Now that we've finally had it out, probably not to your complete satisfaction, you win, I lose, I surrender.

I have a good sense of where I stand here and I was already fully aware that some of the comments I have made in the past have been really bad. I don't think that was news to anyone. As Ewan said, I am a fan. As a fan, I know what seems to work on acmeshorts and try to emulate it, but that does not mean I succeed at it. I am just glad there is a guest section because it is fun to try. It makes sense that the shorts posted by authors, and comments made by authors should be of a higher calibre than those by guests. To wit, John Slocum, Craig Lewis, Scoop, et al have been 'promoted' and obviously not by simple virtue of their writing, but by their presence on the site as well; I don't possess that kind of presence or ability, I've known that from the start. What I did not realise from the start is that anyone paid attention to me enough to notice. It took a couple of hard lessons, Leonard for example, and I thought I had been getting somewhere as far as limiting the amount of bullshit that I post. Ironically, I was trying to take your advice and learn a lesson in restraint [and am even now posting a 700 word response]. So yes, Acmeshorts is a lot of fun and I go out of my way to come up with things that are worthy, but I struggle at it.

I got this email last night from someone who lurks, but doesn't post on acmeshorts.com, and who I consider to be extremely wise.

I know you've thought of responding again, but don't until you have thought it through for a long, long time. He is an asshole, and he takes pride in it. You can't intellectualize chronic assholism, but that's how he defeats people. He gets them answering his questions. You don't need this lesson, but sometimes you come unglued and I would hate to see you hand him any ammo. If I post, it will be on the "step away for a while / talk to your friends" theme. You'll notice how quiet [certain people] have been because clearly they have had this discussion with him as well. He's damaging Acme. Everybody knows it, but nobody wants to get on his wrong side. Ignore his challenges.

Good luck with this. Don't let him get to you.

At the time I didn't listen because the only way to deal with a bully is to confront him, so knowing I have no chance in hell in taking you in this forum I at least made a stand; in the past I've just acquiesced to you and moved on, but this is the second time you deliberately picked on me in a completely insulting and confrontational way.

My initial comment was going to be something like, "Because I'm an idiot, I thought you were serious; so is it?" but I had actually tried to plow through your cryptic comment to understand it and answer it seriously and it took a while; I was surprised to find out that it actually stung a lot when I realised what was going on. The rest of it is just my refusal to back down from a bully, I don't even know if I had an actual point to make other than, ďI refuse to back down because Iím being bullied.Ē So, I kept it up for as long as I could.

You win Jon Matza, I am on the mat. I have been beat down by a graceless bully and I am not getting up. On the other hand, I'm not going away unless the site becomes private and I'm not invited to stay.

In the meantime, please stop insulting me - you've had your say and I'm not leaving.

Last word, seriously this time.
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: OK, the Buyer, fair enough. I'll refrain from insulting and baiting you in the future, though I reserve the right to honestly react to the substance of your shorts/comments and respond in kind if I sense you're trying to bait or insult me. I'll also think about the bully accusations, given that there seems to be such a uniformity of opinion about this. Lastly, in regards to grace, while I concede I often lack interpersonal grace (in the context of acme at least), I've tried, and hopefully managed to inject some grace into the writing itself, even when being at my most caustic and insulting.
08/13/2004 Jon Matza: p.s. Except for the last paragraph, there was no insider stuff going on in the short.
08/13/2004 Ewan Snow: So that's that? I was hoping for something more dramatic. You guys suck compared to Craig and me. Right Craig?
08/16/2004 Ferucio P. Chhretan: Who calls anyone a "creamsicle"? I gotta start using that. Wait, it's not racist, is it?
08/16/2004 Mr. Pony: Racist? Like "Oreo" or "Twinkie"? I wondered that too! I figured it was a minor point, though, and settled back to watch the rest of the thing. Now, however, from a certain point of view, it seems almost that the entire argument maybe rests upon the slippery shoulders of this one slur! Tell us, Matza, what the devil did you mean by calling TheBuyer a creamsicle? And TheBuyer, how did you take it?
08/16/2004 Jon Matza: I don't know what it meant, actually. It just sounded bad (same w/"meringue eating etc").
08/16/2004 Jon Matza: I also considered "strawberry shortcake".
08/16/2004 TheBuyer: I took it as more of the same, Mr. Pony.
08/16/2004 Jon Matza: For what it's worth, the Buyer, youngsters and adults alike enjoy this delicious novelty.
08/16/2004 TheBuyer: Yup, since 1923; A marvelous west coast accident caused by a child.
08/16/2004 Jon Matza: ...think about baseball...think about baseball...
08/17/2004 TheBuyer: Ya, sometimes I like to walk the line.
08/17/2004 Jon Matza: Any chanced of getting those italics fixed, Disney?
08/18/2004 TheBuyer: What, and lose that anecdotal feel to the dialogue?
08/18/2004 Will Disney: italics fixed. also this is now the latest controversy. all right!
08/18/2004 Jon Matza: You and I have made history together, the Buyer! Let me buy you a Grolsch, guy?
08/18/2004 TheBuyer: OK, cheers!
10/9/2008 qualcomm: i'm not sure you know this, matza, but thebuyer used to work for a collection agency, which is why he brought up "debtors." i don't think his original intent was to imply that you were in his debt. oddly, though, he failed to adequately disabuse you on this point. hope that puts this baby to bed, at long last.
12/20/2009 qualcomm: one likes to come back to this thread every so often and savour it.
12/22/2009 Litcube: I do that too.
12/22/2009 qualcomm: well, between that and your professed love for matza, one deduces you dislike thebuyer.
12/30/2009 Marvin_Bernstein (4): right up my alley although the comments really take the piss out of the short
08/13/2011 Ewan Snow: I think my long comment below is retarded.