The issue's rather long, and since the general tone of editorials seems to lower people's spirits to that of meagre slaves, this is it.
I RUN REDHAT
Ron Chmara, writes:
Goatboy might do well to invent his own routines, not plagarize the Travaglia BOFH series.
http://frolic.dhs.org/humor/bofh/
Goatboy admits his horrible crime for attempting to write a humorous pastiche clearly based off the BOFH's original stories (hence why he titled it "The Bastard Assistant Editor from Hell").
CoN actually ran some original BOFH stories last year with the permission of the Bastard himself (You can check it out here on our text archives:http://www.disobey.com/text/capital_of_nasty/volume_iv/CoN17.txt).
Goatboy was duly arrested, processed and finally executed. His last words were: "Just for the record, Simon's official BOFH site is this one: http://bofh.ntk.net/Simon.html ... UGH!". He left many scattered kids.
OUT FIGURE ANYONE CAN WHAT SAYING HE?
Eelco den Dunnen kicks my ass:
Leandro,
Been awhile, no?
So, where's the humor?
Well, let me *particularly long* flame it to you.
Me just had to react on the V.12 issue, since you blatantly invite full-scale mediocrity into the CoN feed by complying to
a request from contributors and some readers, we're going back into the Theme based issues of CoN. As usual, send in your suggestions (not that I am expecting any. Damn you all!Damn you all to hell!)
Two things seem appropriate here:
One, don't ever, ever, ever utter that you, in any way, will ever conceive, let alone support, the notion of meeting any request whatsoever from whoever. Makes assholes like me write (back). And that's like inviting immigration officers to perform a preventive anal search: you'll *always* get more then you bargained for (unless you missed a much anticipated weekly sado-orgy at the Whip-'em-Till-They-Blow club).
Two, *as usual* thanks for the damnation, but this is kicking in an open door, right? Or does your pamphlet actually needs the rantfeed from readers? (then this email may serve some purpose) If it's to do with quality, don't bother asking: It better be send-in suggestions! Reading the latest flood of CoNs, it's obviously not fill you're short on. Moreover, one gets puzzeld by the word *contributors*, but let's not stray on that path already. Or should we?
Right then. Let's examine your sorry Rant-contributor Jason MacIsaac's "Being Misquoted" (Get it, J?). Better yet: let's not. Me'll give you why. Because we're confined to Hell (which is, well, the very bottem, right?) and frankly, you couldn't hit it more hard rock-bottemed then this pulp, me reckons. To think that me was master, me stand corrected: in this MacIsaac got the better (..er.. me mean worse) of me. OK, one for you, Leandro. The need for contribution is definitely there. So much for the quotation lessons.
Who's next?
Goatboy.
Me'll get back on him soon. Me suspect him (or the likes of him) to be working at my office as well.
Who then? Right, Jeff is on. Burry this bloke right where you dug him up. Unbearable. Mov(i)e One: don't give off on the dumb majority of FILM visitors. They make festivals possible (read: affordable) for most dedicated followers of anti-Hollywood shite. Most people still don't *get* 2001 A Space Odyssey neither, but without them you wouldn't even know what film me was talking about. Embrace the vast shitload of people on this planet, without the amount of these mindless hordes of idiots there wouldn't be a place for the few goodies. By the way: if something is "Needless to say", try not to say (or write) it then. Stating what should be left out is actually putting it in, sort of omissioning the omission. Just trust me on this one.
Mov(i)e Two: damn laddy, are you goin' mental on us here? Believe me, people catch your drift if you tell them that a theatre, made for plays, makes a bad movie screening place, that's inherent to the purpose of the bloody building! Quit babbling convert reasons like "because it's big and looks fancy".
And then you do it yet again: First you please us in telling that you won't discuss the dumbest aspect of any coverage, namely the commentator's personal uncomfort, immediately followed by the remarks that it will be dealt with in full later on. Really, fool, nobody is interested is them. Not then, not later. Never!Worse still, when you finally come to *a* point (e.g. the bleeding FILM) you're not going to give us any plot synopsis, instead you give us your rant about your personal opinions on the stars, your irk, the audience and believe it or not the actual actors playing...actors. I know it's confusing, but hey, you're the pundit here, or what?
Skipped the rest of Jeff's FOURTEEN mov(i)es, it could only get more "irky" from there on. Two-nil, Leandro. Confine Jeff to one key only: the spacebar. Or just lose the bugger!
Rounding up here.
Bad news: you do need help, man. Badly.
Good news: by the looks of it, it can only get better.
Unsubcribingly mine,
Eelco den Dunnen (Below sealevel, ebb or flow)http://edd.www.cistron.nl
Metadata: