03/2/2005 Streifenbeuteldachs: Kamikaze shooterdowner?
03/2/2005 John Slocum: no, Why We Hate the French Like Ourselves.
03/2/2005 John Slocum: jew guillotine
03/2/2005 qualcomm: this might merit the coveted one star vote.
03/2/2005 qualcomm (1): yeah, screw this
03/2/2005 scoop: But it's so edgy!
03/2/2005 scoop: Hey why'd all you ass holes otalicize all your comments and your names. Because your fucking stupid or ugly?
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow (1): forgive me, forgive me...
03/2/2005 qualcomm: you tool, scoop. where'd you learn your trade? disney, fix that, will you?
03/2/2005 TheBuyer: I look forward to seeing google hits for "seething larva clamgina wound" real soon!
03/2/2005 TheBuyer (1): 
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow: yeah scoop, and also please be advised that the contraction of "you are" is quite distinct from the second person possessive. ass hole.
03/2/2005 Dick Vomit (1): MY COMMENT (optional): a million detonating cunts in a bucket of electified dogshit. beaver tits ass milk fuckstick.
03/2/2005 scoop: Snow you please be advised that YOUR a retard fourth person obsessive. Fuck bucket.
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow: That's really funny, scoop.
03/2/2005 Mr. Pony: Hang on, folks, there's something good about this one, and I'm just the man to find it!
03/2/2005 qualcomm: why bother? stop being such a jerk.
03/2/2005 qualcomm: folks, disregard pony's comment and continue voting.
03/2/2005 Mr. Pony: Everything deserves some consideration, qualcomm! From the tiniest sprout to the tallest redwood; nothing is purely evil!
03/2/2005 anonymous: In 1911 Marcel Proust had 800 pages of what was ultimately to become the huge complex of novels called Remembrance of Things Past ready for publication. He approached the house of Fasquelle and was rejected. He went to the Nouvelle Revue Francaise and was rejected again, by the celebrated Andre Gide. After a third publisher, Ollendorf, had refused his manuscript ... Proust decided to pay for publication himself. The following January Gide wrote to Proust apologizing for the rejection, which he called the "...one of the most burning regrets, remorses, of my life."
03/2/2005 qualcomm: author: have you read remembrance of things past? pony: i didn't mean to imply that the short was "evil," just dumb and unfunny and stuff.
03/2/2005 qualcomm: anyway, nothing to see here, folks, just go on with your voting.
03/2/2005 anonymous: Enough to know any differences between it & this short are superficial. (Sorry to interrupt your campaign.)
03/2/2005 Mr. Pony: Actually, I was talking about plants. Plants are evil!
03/2/2005 Phony Millions: So author, are you saying that you and Proust are spiritual siblings because you both catalogue the banal day in day out of your lives? Where's the Madeleine cookie of this short? I'm searching...
03/2/2005 Mr. Pony: Brad...this new name...It's like you're suddenly wearing a clown suit.
03/2/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: PM: That's in the second volume. It's his bunghole, which smells like jarlsberg. Oh,wait, maybe that's someone else's bunghole.
03/2/2005 John Slocum: I like 'seething larva clamgina wound' 'cod diaper' 'Garbage leukemia fuck' 'sewer rectum fistula rupture' and 'jew guillotine.' Good, creative angry outbursts, somewhat enjoyable. Last night when I was a tad drunk I laughed at 'jew guillotine.' This short-idea however has some structural limitations, and make this series of angry statements seem like merely a series of angry statements.
03/2/2005 qualcomm: you have to be kidding. get a hold of yourself. this compartmentalized, oenological approach to reading isn't appropriate here.
03/2/2005 John Slocum: This was actually the first time I wasn't using an oenological approach. I was talking about the acme shorts site appearance as the 'structure' on which all the angry statements sat, dummy-wummy.
03/2/2005 qualcomm: i didn't mean your 'structure' statement. i meant the way you reduce a short to its chemical parts (flavors), to be appreciated for the way they react to your brain tissue (tongue), as if these words were found objects, not created by someone with an intention. your non-holistic approach, in other words.
03/2/2005 qualcomm: *react with your brain tissue*
03/2/2005 qualcomm: (and not to say that wine isn't created by someone with an intention. but you know what i mean.)
03/2/2005 Dylan Danko (1): Jimson, I've told you before, all bungholes smell like jarlesburg. Guys, who's gonna start summarizing Proust first?
03/2/2005 Litcube (2): This has slightly more merit than one star, and after this comma, I will insert mandatory "in my opinion" quip. I might have smiled during the course of one or two fleeting moments. Pony: Agree re clown suit (not a bad thing). Also, in 1911, the .45 cal. was invented as the standard issue WWII sidearm. All of your comments were very funny this morning!
03/2/2005 John Slocum: QC: is this not holistic, or at least pulling back from the way the flavors react with the tongue: 'This short-idea however has some structural limitations, and make this series of angry statements seem like merely a series of angry statements.' Granted I began the comment with what you're talking about. Also, I haven't voted, so how do you know in advance how my observations are going to coalesce? Answer me.
03/2/2005 John Slocum: answer me!
03/2/2005 John Slocum: answer me!
03/2/2005 Litcube: Of course, WWII hadn't begun by then.
03/2/2005 Dylan Danko: This short would have been better if the pending shorts number was 69. Much better!
03/2/2005 qualcomm: i will answer after you vote
03/2/2005 qualcomm: ever had st. marcellin cheese, by the way?
03/2/2005 John Slocum: I'm going to vote 2, but later, as I have 30 cases of wine coming in.
03/2/2005 Dylan Danko: Aged Marcellin, QC?
03/2/2005 qualcomm: not sure... there is a nice layer of mold on top...
03/2/2005 qualcomm: eating it is like going down on the swamp thing, in a good way
03/2/2005 anonymous: For the record, I giggled rapturously when writing this, spent a long time revising/reconsidering word choices & figured it was going to get about 50% 5 stars. Seriously.
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow: Author, I'm not surprised. I was going to make a comment earlier about how shorts like this, which are very high concept, often aren't received the way they are expected to be. It's a big gamble, and it just didn't pan out. I'd be interested to know exactly what you thought were the funniest things about this.
03/2/2005 Mr. Pony: Dylan, I think "Pending Shorts: 3" was the best joke here.
03/2/2005 Dylan Danko: Yeah, but Pony, what about 69? Oh man!
03/2/2005 anonymous: I, author, just arrived at work after a bracing 6 mile walk over the Brooklyn Bridge and straight through the throbbing heart of Manhattan! With each step I absorbed portions of the bustling cityscape into my very soul. Snow: response forthcoming.
03/2/2005 anonymous: OK, then...Snow: I, author, tend to find the sweet spectacle of impotent paroxysms of rage--explosive, vindictive, childish, obscenity-laden outbursts that are unpremeditated and/or way out of proportion/inappropriate to the situation/topic--to be deeply funny. I was trying to take this to baroque, surreal lengths with this short. The "author" here is not meant to be "edgy" but exceedingly silly; moronic, ridiculous. While I can certainly understand people not finding this funny as me (or funny at all), as in the case of this short, I was astonished anyone assumed I was expressing true, heartfelt bile. (Similarly, I was surprised when my 'tantrum' response to Litcube's Matza song yesterday seemed to be taken at face value). Guess I should've learnt by now, since some (most?) of my least popular shorts have illustrated that others don't find this "motif" as funny as I, author, do. No doubt there are other factors informing people's reactions to these shorts; however, I, author, do think there's a general aversion to this "strain" of "humor". Am not just saying so for the sake of argument, I've noticed it/contemplated it before. For some reason I've had better luck w/this "device" in graphic shorts (e.g., Fence Guy I & II and this recent one).
03/2/2005 qualcomm: i didn't take it at face value, brother.
03/2/2005 anonymous: Oh. Hmm!
03/2/2005 qualcomm: i actually didn't read these as angry outbursts. just obscene, or as scoop said, "edgy"
03/2/2005 Litcube: I think Pony's comment (the one indicating you took the song at face value) wasn't intended to be taken for face value itself. Needless to say, upon the initial read, nor was your response.
03/2/2005 anonymous: All I know is that history will not be kind to those who one-starred this short when, months from now, a dozen or more of its phrases have entered the popular lexicon.
03/2/2005 scoop: Nor was your last comment, obviously, obviously.
03/2/2005 Litcube: Scoop, if you're referring to what I think you're referring to (and I think you are), you are wrong. How many times must a dude clarify that he's serious?! I'm for serious! Suh-Harayuhslay!
03/2/2005 Mr. Pony: Litcube's right, Matza (if you are indeed Matza, and not some clever and rigorous fake). Seriously, do you think you're the only one capable of making a joke while pretending to be serious? I mean, really. That sort of ego-mania is really very unbecoming. I really think you should keep a close eye on that tendency of yours, and make sure that it doesn't get out of hand. I think you'll be a lot happier in the long run. Please don't take this the wrong way; I'm only saying this because I care.
03/2/2005 Mr. Pony: Ha ha, you see what I did there?
03/2/2005 Mr. Pony: ha ha
03/2/2005 anonymous: OK! (?)
03/2/2005 anonymous: Incidentally, "one" "cannot help" but notice that only Slocum made any effort to say something substantive about the short. Consensus seems to be that in this case the badness is so obvious it doesn't bear comment/analysis...but I, author, nonetheless remain "uncertain" as to what people disliked so intensely.
03/2/2005 Litcube: Pony! High-fiver, guy!
03/2/2005 TheBuyer: Forget it, I'm scared of you.
03/2/2005 Phony Millions: Author, could it be that the use of acmeshorts itself as a vestibule for your comic ire strikes these fair readers as...too facile? For me, that aspect of this short made it less an autonomous piece with its own comedic rhythm, and more a case study of acme with some dressing on top, a kind of parasitic short, dependent on the locus in which it exists - here. In short, an 'inside short', but one smelling a bit of bad faith.
03/2/2005 qualcomm: author -- i was about to get into that. it's difficult to negatively critique a short in a coherent way when the short is so nonsensical. i was just speaking of this piece to my associate, ewan snow, and he was wondering: what do the phrases after the colons mean? are they comments on the category (USER FEEDBACK, AUTHOR/STATS, etc.), jokey examples of the category, or what? i thought they were some of each. and now that you've explained that the tone of this was supposed to be impotent rage, one must wonder: for what? who or what is the object of this rage? many other such nuts and bolts questions were bandied in our most stimudent convo. they may seem like so much nitpicking, but the net result of all these confusing elements? crickets. (i'd also like to add that the actual execution of these rage-lines isn't that interesting. i thought dick vomit's 10:42 comment was a much better example of this kind of writing than anything in your short.)
03/2/2005 qualcomm: yeah, fonebone, i agree -- it's like, too inside. if acme shorts is a community, this short is like the town madman, raging against society on the corner of Elm St. and Lerpa Blvd. in a way that's almost relevant, almost coherent, but not quite. it's like you just put the acme meme in a blender.
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow: Qualcomm, you make it sound like we're some kind of monolith. I have my own opinions, and they're valuable. Matza, I shouldn't have one starred the short so fast, probably, but I didn't know what to make of it. I could see the idea of addressing the Acme left menu in a short, maybe, seeming funny, but I'm not sure it is funny. Seriously, though, I didn't understand if the portion after the colon was speaking to the menu item or describing it or being spoken by it or being a nonsensical free association from it (which I guess is closest to how you’ve explained it). I’ll go and check out the shorts of yours you linked to. Haven’t yet. Could be this type of thing just doesn’t tickle my so called “funny” boner. And as they say, “different funny boner strokes for different funny boner folks.”
03/2/2005 qualcomm: okay, cool. you're still my associate, though, right?
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow: How about "counterpart", like R2D2?
03/2/2005 Phony Millions: Observe: Snow's guilt!
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow: You fool, I'm beyond good and/or evil...
03/2/2005 Phony Millions: Yes I forgot. Your funny boner is happily different!
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow: Also, Matza, most of those other shorts aren't very much like this. The only two that are close are the Fucking Short For Disney and the one with Sherwoode, and they were both much more coherent. I like all of the ones you linked to better than this one.
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow: That's right, Phony Millions. By the way, Phony Millions, my compliments on your new name. It's dashing.
03/2/2005 Phony Millions: I'm glad it takes! It's quite a departure.
03/2/2005 qualcomm: well i think it's totally weird.
03/2/2005 Phony Millions: Yeah I also didn't see how the linked shorts below were like this one. Like it or hate it, this kind of has its own little ouvre.
03/2/2005 Ewan Snow: qc, you're joking cuz you're "qualcomm"?
03/2/2005 Phony Millions: and a chameleon as well! How much longer will he be Qualcomm?
03/2/2005 qualcomm: not much longer.
03/2/2005 anonymous: When time at last catches up to this visionary short your votes will be figuratively etched into your arm like 6-sided, scarlet stars of shame. you will then be figuratively transported standing up in cattle cars to be incinerated by the cleansing fire of historical judgement. How I look forward to that day!
03/3/2005 Mr. Pony: Don't worry about it, Matza, my man. I thought that a picture of my head yelling forever was pretty funny. Still do, despite my newfound knowledge that others don't, so much. Care to shuffle our horses off into the sunset, making little quips about odd things we noticed earlier but didn't comment on at the time?
03/3/2005 John Slocum (3): I like the flavor of 'endometriosis nightmare.' 3 stars for the individual flavors and the way they react to my tongue, and for all the laughs this got out of me, non-holistically that is. Also for trying something different. Also because it's funny thinking about you laughing at what you were writing as you wrote this.
03/7/2005 Shomer Shabbas (3): More points for creativity and phrases like "sewer rectum fistula rupture" than for humor. And not very similar to those other 'not so popular' shorts author referred to.