home authors guest shorts graphical shorts

AcmeShorts

3/18/2004 12:45:46 PM - Craig Lewis: Dude, you're too thick to realize that you've proven me wrong about nothing. The idea that I "didn't understand the comptroller joke" is ridiculous. Has it entered you mind that I might not have been entirely serious when I spoke about spraying the dog with budget appropriations and crunching numbers on his ass? That these comments were tongue-in-cheek -- that I was critiquing a joke I found wanting? The reason I want to end this conversation is that it is boring, for everyone. I don't care if you think I'm conceding. At first, I rather enjoyed these arguments, but I really find them tiresome now. They're obviously far more important to you, since you spend so much time on this site baiting me with dog jokes and other bon mots. "Rover, roll over and play dead"! The droll spirit of Wodehouse lives, in Ewan Snow! Finally, since you're accusing me of changing the subject, I direct your attention to this message board posting by Matza, who, uniquely among the people who know you're making a total ass of yourself, had the guts to call you out; your response was to cut and run and act like the whole thing was gosh golly one great big joke (although you got off a few super one-liners about freedom of speech -- political humor). I'm done now.
3/18/2004 12:02:11 PM - Ewan Snow: You're unbelievable. As soon as you're proven wrong, you pretend like the whole thing is too boring for you. You'll argue endlessly until you lose, then you don't have any more time for it, right? And no, we're not done, Rover, until you roll over and play dead like the dog that you are.
3/18/2004 11:56:38 AM - Ewan Snow: I didn't see that last comment of yours. Do you have something against Benny? The guy made a mistake (typo, ignorance, or whatever), and you just can't stop harping on it. Now that you realize you didn't understand the comptroller joke, you're taking it out on him? Nice one.
3/18/2004 11:56:33 AM - Craig Lewis: Ok, "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about." Happy? Are we done now?
3/18/2004 11:44:26 AM - Ewan Snow: Douche bag.
3/18/2004 11:39:33 AM - Ewan Snow: ďfully realized joke-conceptĒ Is that the same as a joke? ďauthentically-held aesthetic stanceĒ Is that similar to an opinion? Does the fact that an aesthetic stance is authentically-held excuse the fact that itís unimaginative, unoriginal, bland? If so, does it also excuse misunderstanding the very object of the aesthetic stance? Funny, or not, you didnít understand that it was an intentional joke. This wasnít a question of you saying, as you say now, that the deliberate insertion of a comptroller in a combat role is somehow too obvious a joke for you. Quite the contrary, you claimed that Benny didnít know what he was doing, that he didnít know what a comptroller was, proving that you were too obvious for the joke. Once you were shown that you were wrong, you changed your argument. The joke isnít very funny anyway, right? I think it is funny, so I think your ďauthentically-held aesthetic stanceĒ is garbage, as I do on most matters. More importantly, I find your inability to admit that you donít get something and your ever drifting arguments to defend you correctness disgusting. Why canít you just admit that you didnít know what the fuck you were talking about? The answer is because youíre too smug, which is why I generally donít bother to arguing with you and feel itís more appropriate to simply insult you. You might disagree with this position, but itís an authentically-held aesthetic stance.
3/18/2004 11:15:54 AM - Craig Lewis: P.S. Benny clearly knows what a comptroller is: an official of pentultimate responsibility within the fiscal bureaucracy.
3/18/2004 11:10:15 AM - Craig Lewis: I'm going to answer your comptroller query because, for once, you're engaging me on a substantive matter. And I'm going to try answer it seriously, hopefully cogently, and with no irony or bitchiness. Here goes. Look, we just disagree about the intrinsic funniness of the "young hot-headed comptroller." It may be, as you say, a "simple joke"; I don't think it's a funny one. In fact, my larger point is rather simple, too: I simply think that there is a bit too much value given, by many acme writer-readers, to just this kind of "random" humor, to the inherent "off-beat" comedy-value of inserting words, phrases, dopey jargon into shorts irrespective of meaning. Sometimes, this stuff is very funny indeed, as in the case of Jeffords's entry into "the invisible vacuplex." For me, the humor here derives, yes, from the sheer absurdity of the word/concept itself, but also from the surrounding context, the ridiculous Philip K. Dick dystopiascape so ably sketched by The Lerpa. But often, the recourse of shorts-writers to invented terminologies, absurdist lingo, comptrollers bellowing like Special Forces operatives, etc., strikes me as a cheap effect -- a weak substitute for truly witty writing or a fully realized joke-concept. You may well disagree with me, I may well be dead wrong about this and have a terrible sense of humor, but I am consistent; my line of argument has the integrity of a being an authentically-held aesthetic stance, and not some fly-by-night bullshit posture adopted for the purposes of besting an enemy in a flamewar. What's more, my voting on the site reflects taste for wide range of different kinds of shorts, including many of yours (most recently, the vagina box thing, which, as Slocum pointed out, I called "nearly perfect"). I guess your position is this: in those cases where I praise a short you deem worthy, I do it for idiotic reasons; when you and I disagree, it's because I'm a moron. Is this it?
3/18/2004 11:04:55 AM - Ewan Snow: Oh, do you write tedious shorts as well? I'm more familiar with your tedious comments. I never said I'm an artistic original, or even particularly good in any way. I've written a number of bad shorts and made plenty of bad jokes and donít pretend otherwise. Iíve never claimed superiority to anybody on this site, except for you. And that superiority to you is not just mine by any means, itís shared by all vertebrates. As I've said before, your very conventional sense of humor would not be the greatest crime, if it werenít for your smugness. Youíre simply unable to admit when youíre wrong, or that you don't get something. I gave several specific examples in that last post of you not getting a specific joke. Do you have a response? Please explain why Benny didn't know what a comptroller was. Please tell us why the short wasnít funny, why it didnít ďtickle your funny bone.Ē You're very eager to criticize, no matter if you know what you're talking about or not. But when your comments have been shown to be foolish, you change the subject. This is a fundamental failure of your character, rendering you beneath contempt. So, no, I don't intend to "engage" your shorts. Thanks, though.
3/18/2004 10:09:26 AM - Craig Lewis: Point taken on the crampons. The nautical tabernacle to which you refer would have no use in this mountaineering context. But it doesn't matter because it's a hilarious word in the first place. I know that I'm clichť anthropomorphized -- and that you are a paradigm-shattering artistic original -- but I really think you should engage some of my shorts, cast a vote, let your voice be heard. Your theory about my mediocrity would carry more weight if backed up with specific references to the texts themselves.
3/18/2004 10:06:17 AM - Ewan Snow: And by the way, since you brought it up, I take back what I said about not defending the hilarity of the comptroller joke. That line is fucking funny. ď'Yes fucking sir!' said the young hot-headed comptroller." Please explain how the author must not know what a comptroller is again. Please show us how your comment ďWhat the hell is a "comptroller" doing in this combat role? What's he going to do: go sick and start spraying the giant dog with budget appropriations? Crunch some numbers on his ass?Ē is not an example of you missing the point of a simple joke. You comments continued with "Surely a crisis like this -- "pentultimate" [sic] or not -- calls for the steady hand of a seasoned comptroller, like Alan Hevesi." It's nice when you both explain a joke and miss the fact that it is one at the same time. It's efficient.

Date Written: March 22, 2004
Author: scoop
Average Vote:

Comments:
03/22/2004 qualcomm (4): good gag
03/22/2004 Mr. Pony (3): True. Funny. Lazy!
03/22/2004 Will Disney: it *is* funny. only four tournament shorts this time around, huh?
03/22/2004 Craig Lewis (3): I'm not sure I understand.
03/22/2004 Will Disney (2): yes sure it's a little lazy. but so true.
03/22/2004 scoop: A true work of geenieus! Acme's own urinal fixed to a gallery wall!
03/22/2004 Ewan Snow: Would have been far superior if it had included my response.
03/22/2004 scoop: You're right Snow, but I had to be fair -- you got to go first.
03/22/2004 Mr. Pony: Craig's missing response to Ewan's missing response was really sweet--The Zing of the Daaaay!
03/22/2004 Moe-Ron (4): tee hee hee
03/22/2004 Craig Lewis: Do Ewan and I share the crown if this one wins?