home authors guest shorts graphical shorts


The purpose of this short, reader, is NOT to entertain, amaze, shock or induce laughter. NO, reader. Though it succeeds handsomely in eliciting these responses, this short has far more important fish to fry, viz:

1) The illumination of our human condizion.

2) The revoluzionizing of language.

2b) The replenishment of natural rezources throughout Disneyland and other popular theme parks of North America.

Granted, readers who enjoy shorts that depend on recycling established forms (e.g. this short) may struggle to appreciate the current one. The force and breadth of ideas expressed here will batter these readers like a big, rotating wooden propeller pulverizes a schoolbus.

Readers who possess average-or-above intelligence, on the other hand, will be inspired by this short to live out the rest of their lives as a beautiful poem or travel brochure.

How does this short achieve its ambitions (you may ask) despite being a blatant ripoff of other recent self-referenzial shorts? For starters, reader, with more refined morphemes, syntax and grammar. Add to that an exceptional typeface, a font size of profound integrity and commanding, unprecedented line spacing throughout. Toss in a greater than average number of big words. Result: the be-all and end-all of text-based conveyances.

Experiencing hallucinations, reader? Feel like you’re walking on a conveyor belt backwards? Maybe that's because the mere existence of this short undermines the stunted intellectual assumptions and delusions upon which you’ve constructed your childish worldview and self-identity up until this point in time? Try?

Rejoice, courageous reader. It is time to discard your corrupt, outdated belief system and throw your lot in with the only short which represents past, present and future rolled into one: short #1956.

If subsequent shorts seem but crude, feckless replicas of this one, reader, do not hold it against them. They cannot realistically hope to be as out and out ballsy as this one...

...for is this not, after all, the Bob Barker of shorts?

Date Written: April 01, 2005
Author: Jon Matza
Average Vote: 4.1429

04/11/2005 John Slocum: Hey, I wonder who this is?
04/11/2005 Will Disney: I really appreciate the author taking the time to contribute this important work!
04/11/2005 TheBuyer: The author is right, this short has a lot of feck compared to those other shorts.
04/11/2005 Mr. Pony: One might suggest that this short is not to be doubted!
04/11/2005 John Slocum: Very well written, but something freaks me out about this one.
04/11/2005 Mr. Pony: ("human condizion"?!?)
04/11/2005 John Slocum: Maybe it's that I'm fond of the voice, I enjoy the voice, I have a lot of great memories with the voice, but don't find this application of it that funny. This one is funnier to me, perhaps because of the economy, perhaps because of the funny, non-sequiterish context of 'legacy.' Anyway, will ruminate more on why this iteration of this voice doesn't work for me.
04/11/2005 John Slocum: I am also reminded of a Big-Bad-Snow short. Similarities: addresses reader, talks about itself, sort of suggests what the effect of the short will be on the reader even as said effect is absurd/delusional/etc. Whaddayaguys/gals think?
04/11/2005 Mr. Pony: Slocum, is this short meant to stand alone? Is it not meant to be the Capstone of a Great (or at least time-consuming) Endeavor?
04/11/2005 John Slocum: Some entries on that list confuse me and I'm not sure what you're getting at, more my thickness and rushing around to get to work. Is the 'author' here launching a rhetorical attack against our dear Shane Mahoney? Why don't you explain and I'll pick this back up when I get to the 'office.'
04/11/2005 Mr. Pony: I apologize for the results of my query; my search terms should have been just a bit more specific.To be honest, I hadn't really considered the possibility that the author was someone other than Mr. Mahoney. I am myself also on my way to the "office". Perhaps the Community could discuss this issue at length, in our absences?
04/11/2005 Jon Matza: This short is truly bodacheo. I cannot compete against this.
04/11/2005 John Slocum: I am Howard.
04/11/2005 Dick Vomit: be pretty cool if a short earned no votes.
04/11/2005 TheBuyer (5): I am moved by the propeller. Truly.
04/11/2005 TheBuyer: ...whoops, sorry D.Vom.
04/11/2005 John Slocum: it's not that I don't want to vote, just not sure yet what to vote.
04/11/2005 Will Disney (4):
04/11/2005 Litcube (4):
04/11/2005 Klause Muppet (4): I will never be the same.
04/11/2005 The Rid (5): Breathes new life into the self referential short, while at the same time protecting our vital natural rezources. Well done, author.
04/11/2005 Front (4): Genius, save for the last line. Am I the only one? Explain.
04/11/2005 anonymous: Explain who bob barker is or why end w/that joke?
04/12/2005 Mr. Pony: So, Matza, you're Shane Mahoney? Is that right? Shane Mahoney?
04/12/2005 Mr. Pony: Explain.
04/12/2005 Jon Matza: No, Pony. I was just borrowing Shane's thin crust 'z' gag.
04/12/2005 Mr. Pony: Okay. That's weird!
04/12/2005 Ewan Snow: I really didn't like this one. I figured it was Matza and assumed he was just copping Shane's Z-bit. (Shane's scoop, right?) But I just think the self-referential schtick is used up, especially considering the recent entries in the category. So not so much "blatant rip-off" as just tired. And with the exception of the bean disease link and the school bus, which were both Chicken Salad Oriental, I didn't really think it had many funny gags.
04/12/2005 Jon Matza: Maybe that's because the mere existence of this short undermines the stunted intellectual assumptions and delusions upon which you’ve etc?
04/12/2005 Ewan Snow: Yeah, could be that. But honestly, my childish worldview and self-identity are built on 5'11" assumptions and delusions, so probably not.
04/12/2005 Jon Matza: When you delude yourself, You make a "DELU" out of DEYO, URS and ELF.
04/14/2005 qualcomm (3):