AcmeShorts

An unspecified number of individuals were engaging in various activities simultaneously.

One turned to the other and was like, "Dude, this is what we do."

The other looked at him and went, "Yeah--but what do you mean by 'do', brother?!!"

(I should have mentioned that the activites the individuals* were engaging in differed in certain ways. Yet a disinterested bystander could also have enumerated a list of similarities between these activities as well, if he or she were inclined to do so. Also, people to whom I have told this story are often interested to learn that a small percentage of the individuals in question were more or less skillful at performing their respective tasks than the others, but all of them nonetheless persisted in their attempts to successfully complete the tasks and procedures assigned to them--or, in a few cases, undertaken voluntarily--with a similar degree of enthusiasm.)

* i.e., all of the individuals, not just the two whose interaction was recounted in the dialogue sequence.

Date Written: June 3, 2002
Author: Jon Matza
Average Vote: 4.2
Comments:
06/3/2002 anonymous (5):
06/3/2002 anonymous (3):
02/6/2004 Mr. Pony (4): Say, I like this one a lot. The p.s. kinda blows it, though, and the *note could have been accomplished with a parenthetical parenthetical. But yeah, I like it a lot.
07/9/2004 scoop (5): I am pretending that the "ps" doens't exist. That lede is, if I may borrow the phrase, sirloin.
02/17/2005 Mr. Pony: Wait, what P.S.? Have I gone mad? Has scoop gone mad as well? Or am I also hallucinating his comment?
02/17/2005 Mr. Pony: Wait, what P.S.? Have I gone mad? Has scoop gone mad as well? Or am I also hallucinating his comment?
02/17/2005 John Slocum (4):
11/2/2009 scoop: Although conspicuously apolitical in these stormy times, this short is what we here at Acme are all about. But about what are we, brother? About what indeed. Brother.
11/3/2009 qualcomm:
11/3/2009 qualcomm: well, i guess i'm anon_a!
11/11/2009 Jon Matza: For the record, IIRC the p.s.--later removed--was something to the effect of "Feldspar, feel free to borrow this anecdote for Ewan's wedding speech". Guess I must've taken it out on account of the user complaints, thereby sacrificing my own creative vision for the good of the team.
11/11/2009 scoop: The real controversy here is why on the afternoon of June 3, 2002, not a even year after the terrible attacks of 9/11, did qualcomm decide to vote anonymously on this short. And not only vote, but vote a five star, the highest accolade here at Acme. Usually the cloak of anonymity is used to cast a low vote or get into other devilment. Why would qualcomm don anonymity to cast a high vote? Why do such a thing? Why? It's really weird, and not in a cool way.
11/11/2009 qualcomm: all votes and comments were anonymous in the early days. jerk.
11/12/2009 scoop: That doesn't explain anything.
12/30/2009 anonymous: double entente heaven