home authors guest shorts graphical shorts


True story, dudes: my uncle's a, like, scholar of ancient texts and shit, he says in the original vershe of Adam and Eve their true names were Madman and Beav? So like it starts Madman's just chilling and outta nowhere God snurfs one of his ribs. Madman's like, "Dude, my cage! What the F?" God's all, “Kazam!”--and suddenly there’s this fly biddy standing there and God’s going “Madman…meet Beav!” Madman’s like, ka...CHING!!!

So they’re maxing in Eden, right, majorly stoked, they’re all “OOH, here we are in paradise. Sheaves of wheat, much?” “Oooh, here’s my, like, puma.” “Dude, check out this ace rhino.” “Ooh, let us imbibeth of this all natural spring water.” "Don't mind if I do." SWIG!!!

Plus they’re like, “Fuck this, we can walk around in our birthday suits for all is natural." They're all like, “Hey dude, get a load of my righteous cock.” "Hey dude, behold my sweet vag.” "Taytal."

Then suddenly God gets all uptight, s'like, “I forbid thee to eateth of the Tree of Knowledge.” They're like, "Uh, OK God." But then the heinous tree snake is all like, "oo, here's an apple--go ahead and mow it." Dangle, dangle! They’re like, “Oh man, that shit looks juicy. Sorry God--we’re gonna have to inhale this!” MUNCH!!!

Then they're busted cause God's like all seeing and he goes psycho on them, totally banishes them from 'vana. He's like, "See you never." They’re like, “HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRSH!!!!” Plus God’s like “I got news for you, everyone's staring at your cock and vag." So they're bumming, all self-conscious and whatnot, they're all "we must score some loincloths or uh, fig leaves and shit."

So now, cuz they're mortal they're like "We must be fruitful and multiply lest we become extinct!" So they beget Cain and Abel and majorly wean them. Then Cain’s like, duuuuuuudes I am noooooot my brotherrrrrrrrs keeeeeperrrrr. Then he fuckin' whales on him.

Then they have to build a mongo ark cause God was like “Monsoon alert!" It was like, "Two of each beast and, like, fowl must entereth the ark at once lest ye become submerged and perish.” Then God unleashes a MAD monsoon, 40 days and 40 nights, sick floodage. Until finally like a dove with an olive branch appears and they’re all like, “Dude, land ho."

Date Written: January 20, 2005
Author: Jon Matza
Average Vote: 4

01/31/2005 Dick Vomit (4): I'll bite, you twat.
01/31/2005 Phony Millions: Cute.
01/31/2005 The Rid (4): I laughed my ass off, even if it was goofy. I mean, who cares, right? It was effing funny. Hell's yeah!
01/31/2005 Ferucio P. Chhretan (4): Dude.
01/31/2005 qualcomm (4): it starts slow, but still, definitely good enough to tack to my cubicle. author, you really made my day!
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: I'm going to have to one star this unless the Author explains how this complies with regulation 27-B of the Acme bylaws. Don’t want to do it. Feel I owe it to you.
01/31/2005 Phony Millions: Pick that scab, Snow!
01/31/2005 Litcube (4): Pretty funny. God was like, "Monsoon alert!" I can hear the narrator in this.
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: Hey, it's nothing personal. And I urge the author to remain completely calm when I give him my one star vote. I just take it as my duty to enforce the acme code, even though it only exists in my head. But really, there's nothing to get upset about. And any resentment toward my one-star vote would be an emotional and mean-spirited overreaction.
01/31/2005 TheBuyer: This is the part where you suggest how he might correct the error.
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: Are you kidding, Buyer. It's so obvious! Anybody would know immediately what they should do in this case. Why state the obvious?
01/31/2005 TheBuyer: So when you go back to it the next day you can say you did. Obviously.
01/31/2005 qualcomm: ok, vote... 1) how many people think No Publishing Work Already Published On Acme is an arcane rule existing only in my head? 2) how many people, upon finding they had accidentally broken that obscure rule, wouldn't think of replacing the offending short with another one from the queue (if, of course, you had another short in the queue)?
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: Don't forget 3) How many people, even given the answers qualcom would obviously would give to #1 and #2, would go head and punish the author with a one-star vote, without first even asking the author to switch it? And 4) How many would then be surprised if the author were annoyed by that, and didn't see this as you simply doing your duty?
01/31/2005 anonymous: 1) of course one shouldn't reprint already published material and 2) most of us wouldn't think twice before attempting, in any way possible, to correct this error. But is that what you two are really arguing about?
01/31/2005 qualcomm: and of course, 5) how much would the fact of the short in question kind of sucking (combined with unscrupulous high votes from joshua and his minion) affect your answers to 3 and 4? (by the way, i never said i was surprised by your annoyance.)
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: agree with anon_a, for the most part. Didn't intend to do it. Would have corrected in any way requested.
01/31/2005 Dick Vomit: This smells like scoop. to me.
01/31/2005 qualcomm: anon_a, your anonymity seems to suggest you fear ewan... what the hell?
01/31/2005 qualcomm: as i said before, ewan, i would have felt sort of silly "requesting" you make a correction. kind of "der kommissar"ish. seriously.
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: qualcom, no maybe not surprised. But you took issue with me responding with a "personal" counterattack, to what you saw as simply you doing your just duty. I saw your duty as an unprovoked attack, personal or otherwise.
01/31/2005 TheBuyer: And who thinks #4) The lack of an actual girl to compete for feminises every detraction and causes some grandfathered authors to butt heads like mountain rams over a 1-star rating while new a new author who made the same rating for similar reasons seems to get off relatively unscathed which makes the argument look less about the events and the rating, and more about issues known only to the two old men bashing away at each other or #5) I'm really just that swell a guy and easily forgiven.
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: so saying "why don't you just replace it with another short" would be "der komissar", but administering swift justice in the form of a one star vote wouldn't? I really don't want to argue about this forever, but I can't believe you can't see my point, or why I would find your actions insufferable.
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: Buyer, I felt you were following qc's lead. Sorry, if that comes off as condescending. I really don't mean it to be. If you want, I can say mean stuff to you too...
01/31/2005 Jon Matza (4): Blatant ripoff of the band Genesis.
01/31/2005 James K. PoIk: Anyway, that's it. I've had it with you guys. I'm sick of your stupid bullshit. Therefore, I'm completely abandoning my Ewan Snow identity. I'm going where I'm appreciated: back to the guest section of Acme Shorts, where I'll only post and write shorts as fan favorite James K. Polk. I've emailed my Ewan Snow password to qualcomm, and I've encouraged him to go ahead and change it to his own password, or whatever. He will no doubt immediately start posting with it, pretending to be me, attempting to maintain the incredible legitimacy and gravitas of that identity. It will soon become clear, through his lacklustre attempts to imitate me, that the Ewan Snow you have all come to know is gone forever, pissed off and wearing a different face. This face!! Goodbye, everyone. The Snowman is dead. Long live the President!!
your president,
James K. Polk
01/31/2005 Mr. Joshua: This is going to be like the Sneeches now. The guests and the "real" authors will so mixed up, that no one will be able to tell who is who. Finally, the classless Acme of which I have long dreamed has arrived. The Paradigm has shifted!!!! We did it, Cyrus!!!!!!!
01/31/2005 TheBuyer: Ya, I can see how you would think that, but this time it wasn't the case. And no, I'm not looking for abuse, it just seemed like the whole back and forth was about something totally different than what was on the table.
01/31/2005 TheBuyer (4):
01/31/2005 qualcomm: as i also said before, your 3:18 comment of "Hold on" seemed to indicate you were about to do something to correct the error, so i didn't think you needed to be prompted. in your subsequent comments, you didn't ever ask for opinions about what you should do (at least, not before i one-starred you), so i didn't offer any. in fact, as i again also said before, your comments prior to my vote seemed to indicate you were going to leave the short up.

i can see your point, no one likes to get one-starred, even in jest, but you're refusing to see mine. you keep making these completely disingenuous arguments. below for example, you resumed our argument by saying that the no double-publishing rule was "arcane". you then quickly backpedalled when anon_a said he didn't agree with that. and in conclusion, you keep doing that thing pony's always accusing me of doing to him: deliberately misinterpreting my point of view as one that's easy to make fun of/refute; namely, saying i was doing what i saw as my "just duty". your choice of words is a transparent attempt to cast me as some kind of uriah heep. in fact i never said anything like "just doing my duty" or "i feel i owe it to acme," nor did my tone or general personality on this site, ever suggest that. i've had people here tell me i'm too cranky, insulting, hotheaded, etc., but nobody ever says, "gosh qc, do you have to stand on the rule book so much?"
01/31/2005 Cyrus: J dog you said it would happen and it has. The emergence of the guest as ruling class. And yet it took so little effort that I am cautious in my celebration. Perhaps this is just the beginning of many great things to come.
01/31/2005 Mr. Pony (4): Author, here are four stars, but you don't get to do this joke for a while.
01/31/2005 qualcomm: (apologies for quoting the word arcane; that word was mine, not yours. but you meant arcane ("regulation 27-B") and you know it.)
01/31/2005 Mr. Joshua: The Promised Land is in sight, Cyrus...but your suspicions are not unfounded, as we are not yet there. Keep up the pressure,never be arrogant, and we will prevail.
01/31/2005 Jon Matza: Re Joshua/Tree's proclamations of victory: what's even more amazing than the coup they've just achieved is that in the five minutes since they announced it, the tide's already swung back in favor of the authors! We now rule the site with even more autocratic/arbitrary power than we did previously!! How do I know this? Because I have confidently declared it to be true! Thereby striking terror into the hearts of all the guest authors and reducing their rebellion to dust! Why do I keep incessantly returning to these Star Wars-ey adolescent male power fantasies? Who cares? The point is that I am supreme and all are deathly afraid of me and my loose 'n' easy conversational style, which reduces all who behold me to jelly 'cause they see I'm a man of the world who knows how to converse with all walks of life!!! Authors, let us celebrate our counter-revolution!! Etc!!!
01/31/2005 Litcube: An author, Ewan Snow, has died, and all you monkeys can do is pop champagne and bang pots and pans over your power struggle? For shame.
01/31/2005 Dylan Danko: I'm just waiting for point #7.
01/31/2005 The Rid: Hey, look! There's a pretty funny short printed on the page here, and you guys are doing what? Crapping it up with your own stupid, self important argument that should have ended Friday! Huzzah!
01/31/2005 Mr. Negative: True story, dudes: Your argument is like, a fuckin' waste of time. Like, dudes, you're both a couple of dicks. This short is, like, sweet though, homes. FUCK YEAH!!! Take it to the fuckin' alley!
01/31/2005 Jon Matza: Which argument, protestors? qc v snow or authors v guests? The previous comment seems suspiciously positive/constructive coming from Mr. Negative...
01/31/2005 John Slocum (4): Who thought this was scoop? This is matza, or i'll cut my left nipple of with the same scissor I use to clip pfineous's claws, and wedge said nipple between my two front teeth.
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: Important Argument: The Conclusion (at least for my part...)

That J.K.P post below is a forgery. I have done no such thing. QC, I do see your point, and have for some time. Posting a short twice is not good. I apologized for it, and rectified it by switching the short. And yes, I exaggerate your 1-star action by casting it in a Judge Smales-like light, but you admitted it was self-righteous. The self-righteousness is what I found so annoying, not so much having another 1-star in my average. And as for “arcane”, I wouldn’t dispute that that was my implication at all. But what I implied was arcane was not the “don’t publish a short twice” rule, but the “when you accidentally re-post a short, and you have another in the queue, you must switch the shorts or get one star vote” rule. Obviously re-posting a short is no good, which is why I agreed with anon_a, and why I apologized for doing it. It wasn’t backpedaling at all. But exactly what should be done was not clear to me, nor did I think for a second that you would really 1-star it. I know you don’t/won’t believe this, but I assure you it is true.

Now, while I acknowledge that this is a grave contradiction in your online persona, I do think you are an extreme stickler, to the point of obstinacy, and that you take it upon yourself to meet out justice on acme. So while I know that you don’t see yourself as Smales-like (and aren’t in general, of course), and that the word “duty” was nowhere in your head when you gave me 1-star, I think it’s clear you did so to punish an infraction, and felt it was your responsibility to do so. To be clear the word “responsibility” was also nowhere in your head, nor likely could be, but the fact that you took the action shows that you felt you should punish the offence. This is what strikes me as Smalesy, and what annoyed me. One reason I’ve emphasized it, aside from scoring easy points in the argument, is because I know it goes counter to your general personality, and hoped that you would see this action, at least to a slight degree, the way I saw it. So, to sum up, gosh qc, do you have to stand on the rule book so much? Also, can you lend me a copy, or at least give me a warning next time before you write me a ticket?

Feel free to refute, rebut any of the points above. I’m officially done with this argument and have nothing else to say. I simply ask that you consider the possibility that you may, just may, have jumped the gun in giving that 1-star, where a simple request might have done the trick, and been considerably less, you know, crummy.
01/31/2005 John Slocum: mete
01/31/2005 Jon Matza: Let it be stated that (questions of content and justice aside), I - za - have enjoyed this qc/snow controversy for its green bean discourse level alone. Acme newcomers, fly by nighters, poseurs and would-be scourges take note. p.s. Snow: what brought on your deciding to post 6 shorts in a row, or whatever it was? Just kyur.
01/31/2005 qualcomm: snow, yes, i agree i jumped the gun. but i'm not being disingenuous when i say that i would have felt silly/bossy telling you how to "rect"ify it. that's not my style. i register my displeasure at the ballot box, not, i think, an assy, provocative move that i think had a rich tradition here at acme. want to french?
01/31/2005 qualcomm: (reader(s): please re-grammarize the second to last sentence in my post so that it makes sense.)
01/31/2005 Mr. Negative: Matza: It's possible that my reputation as Mr. Negative was tarnished by praising this short. But so be it: This short is worthy. It has humor; it has pathos; it has naked chicks. Those are things that I, Mr. Negative, can get behind. And fuck all you assholes who say otherwise. As for the Snow/QC argument, that's just gay and overplayed. You heard me. Gay and overplayed, and I'm not afraid of either of you jerks.
01/31/2005 Jon Matza: Well-expressed, Mr. N. Just keep in mind that exhausting, ad nauseum arguments, attacks and counter-attacks are a venerated (venerable?) tradition here at 'cme.
01/31/2005 Phony Millions (4): Qualcomm, your use of the word 'assy' mitigates your earlier use of 'disingenous'. The latter word was getting too damn serious. This is a four.
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow: QC: Yes, I do want to French, frankly. Also, don't worry; I'm more than willing to forgive that sort of silliness/bossiness, especially if the alternative is a 1-Star vote. Slocum: thank you. Mete. Matza: What led me to post six shorts in a row? A rush of pure Acme hubris. I mean, the good stuff. I had a dream and I just couldn’t let go. I would corner the frozen concentrated orange juice market, so to speak. But I got in over my head. In the end, I almost ruined a hard-earned author ranking, and worse yet, a terrific friendship. So you’re right to point out this controversy to all these “Acme newcomers, fly by nighters, poseurs and would-be scourges.” (Ha!) But let it be understood that our freedoms here at Acme are hard-fought and that even the greatest accomplishments of an Acme Author are bittersweet.
01/31/2005 Ewan Snow (4):
01/31/2005 Streifenbeuteldachs (4):
02/1/2005 John Slocum: Then he fuckin' whales on him.