Blue Light Productions presents.... My first posted MiSTing. I'm working on another one, but thought this deserved to come out first. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Insert your favourite opening here. Hey, I've never seen the show, so how I can insert an opening?> [SOL Interior. Tom and Crow are sitting behind a desk, dressed up in suits with silly bow ties.] [Magic Voice hmms a generic tune of documentries everywhere.] TOM: Good morning everyone! And, welcome to "Let's Be Inappropriate!" Crow, old buddy, what should we talk about tonight? CROW: Well, Tom, I thought today we could discuss the toilet life of the Amazonian marsupial. [Mike wanders on.] MIKE: Er, guys, I don't think that's really appropriate discussion for our audience. [Tom thumps his head against the table, and Crow gives Mike a 'long-suffering' look.] CROW: That was the point, Nelson. Geez, ruin a good sketch, whydontcha? MIKE: Oh. Sorry guys. [MADS light flash.] TOM: Oh, good. Just who I need right now. Doctor Killfile. [DEEP 13] DR. F: You know, it's amazing sometimes how often your skits relate to the dreck I'm about to send you. Still, that wont help in this case. Here's something I picked up from someone who doesn't know the difference between mailing and posting. Don't enjoy. [SOL - divers alarums] ALL: WE GOT THE CONFUSED SIGGGNNNN!!!!!! [6..5..4..3..2..@..] >Article 2949 of alt.drwho.creative: TOM: Oo, another creative group dragged to the pits of hell. CROW: It can say hi to alt.startrek.creative when it gets there. >Message-ID: <003303Z21101995@anon.penet.fi> >Path: comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato!ames!agate!nntp-ucb.barrnet.net!autodesk.com! >toad.com!amdahl.com!news.fujitsu.com!nntp-sc.barrnet.net!sony!sonysjc!sonybc! >sonyfwbc!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi! >anon.penet.fi MIKE: Always nice to know that it didn't go to any lengths to get to us. >Newsgroups: alt.drwho.creative >From: firstname.lastname@example.org (an264537) TOM: At least they're being open with their email address. >X-Anonymously-To: alt.drwho.creative >Organization: Anonymous forwarding service >Reply-To: email@example.com >Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 00:30:32 UTC CROW: Unfortunate Terminal Crap. >Subject: Story: Zoe on the Couch MIKE: Uhh, guys, perhaps you shouldn't be reading this. >Lines: 316 > > > >Summary: A personal attack on Donald Gillikin was written and retracted. > The attack also explained the final two stories I had planned. MIKE: Actually, I don't think I want to read this, either. TOM: If we've given the summary, do we still have to suffer the post? MIKE: I'm afraid so. > >When I first read Donald's attack, I wrote a malicious reply. >It was clear that Donald had not read Jason Miller's questions and >comments, but I thought I could still have a little fun at his expense. CROW: I'm just cutsy in that way. > >When I wrote the reply, I had thought it was insightful and scathing and >funny. I reread it at lunch. It's none of the above, but I think it is >self-revealing, more so than my stories, so I'm posting it. (That and the >fact that I spent two hours on it.) TOM: So, it's superficial, pleasent and serious, but, because he took two hours to write the thing, WE STILL HAVE TO SUFFER IT!! MIKE: [pats Tom] There, there. Only 300 lines to go. TOM: Oh, thank you so much. > I doubt if many people will read my >stories after this. It would be pointless to write if that were true. ALL: PLEASE LET IT BE TRUE! > >Oh, well. > >Donald, if you insist on reading it, don't take it seriously. After >putting you through an emotional wringer, I reveal that the reply was >merely more self promotion. Fun at your expense. Whoopee. MIKE: So, Donald, you were just a toy I used at your expense to merely get a good word in for myself. 'BOTS: ENJOY! > >Rereading it now, I find it silly and stupid and weird. I think it's still >insulting but that could be my own arrogance. Don't take it seriously. >Why take anything over the net seriously? Just so we can over-react! CROW: I think it's silly and stupid and weird, and I haven't even read it yet. MIKE: Just as long as we don't overreact. TOM: OVER-REACT?! WHO'S OVER-REACTING!?!?! MIKE: No, Tom, that's over-*act*ing. TOM: Oh. Right. > >Sorry about being so verbose; I don't want this to be misunderstood. > >Here is the original response: >======================================================================= >Readers of adwc who don't want to hear my retort to Donald's attack > should hit 'n' now. I'm not sure this post is funny enough unless > you're in the same room as Donald. [Mike starts hitting something] CROW: Come on, Mike. Hit that 'n' harder. MIKE: It isn't working! > >I know I'm no writer. I try but I'm not. I can't do characterizations, > so I have to make the stories bizarre. I always warn people and > provide one line summaries so people can avoid them. TOM: So, he's admitting that he can't write, and that all his stories can be summed up in one line. > > Many people don't bother with my stories, but I think some people find > a few of the stories amusing, and most people don't mind my showing off > (as many unpaid writers do) since I do try to contribute stories. > > Apparently, some people mind - a lot ... CROW: We get forced to read this. WE mind. > >Donald wrote: > >If there's one thing I can't stand, it's an author who in his arrogance > >feels the need to provide us poor benighted readers with a self-serving > >exigesis of his work. My dear fellow, just because some of us didn't like > >it doesn't mean that we didn't understand it, so there is no need to > >defensively assert your superiority. > >You hurt my feelings ! CROW: I'm gonna tell on you! > > >Donald Gillikin, grow up. CORW: Be mature like me. [blows a raspberry] > >Your post is a personal attack. Fine. TOM: Hey, Crow, he's calling an open season on attacking him. CROW: Way to go. > >But you also use one of the worst underhanded styles of attack. > You attack like a bully: you attack by accusing your rival of > being defensive and leave no room to respond, "my dear fellow." > A person can't respond without making himself sound defensive. MIKE: And this guy is throwing the discussion wide open? > > Beat your wife lately? > > My dad told me never to let people like you get away with that. CROW: He also said to stay away from them happy pills. MIKE&TOM: Bouncey, bouncey, bouncey. > > How would you like an underhanded attack? Ready to hear some > insights about yourself, "my dear fellow" ... MIKE: Brace yourselves, guys. > > >Even though you pretend to represent "poor benighted readers," > I see your post as a rush to defend your friend Jason Miller. > It is admirable to defend a friend. It is a good thing. TOM: Yep, it's a good things to do. CROW: Yeah. Defend a friend. Good. MIKE: Nine out of ten people said that defending a friend was a good thing. > > I didn't mean to attack Jason in any way. If Jason cared, I'm sure, > as a future JD, he could argue his own case and win - and without > resorting to your tactics or words like "benighted" and "exigesis." > Are you a school teacher? If so, you are coming on way too strong. TOM: You're using big words that I don't understand. > > It's funny. While you ridicule people for acting superior, you > use words like "exigesis." How many of us knew what that meant? > Don't worry, no one thinks you're a hypocrite. (By the way, use a > spelling checker.) TOM: [tries to waves his hands in the air, but understandably fails.] I know, I know. Doland only got ONE letter wrong. Sheesh, think what this guy would do to Ratliff. MIKE: Well, be fair, Tom. Ratliff does deserve it. CROW: Yeah, but we wont deserve Doctor Forrester showing us the result. > >All my posts are self-promotion including this one. CROW: Here's the part where I promote my own abusing. > I'm guilty of using multi-syllabic words like that but I wanted > hype my last two adwc stories (this is alt.drwho.creative after all). > The stories are about teachers and students, in which the narrators > are teachers of some sort... does that explain the tone? MIKE: Nope. Nor does it explain why you can't find the email function. TOM: He's just doing this to hype his own stories, remember? MIKE: It's times like this I really hate being up here. > > I have been showing off, and in my last story, I parody myself and I refer > back to my "exigesis" and my comments to Shannon and Will. MIKE: Okay, Tom, what is "exigesis"? TOM: It's supopsed to be "exEgesis" and it means: critical explanation of a text. MIKE: Well, that explains everything. > The other is > a nice but perhaps over-sentimental story that I got from Will. > (Thanks, Will!) ALL: Thanks, Will! > > You could easily make fun of those stories, but, Donald, I hope you > resist any temptation to read those stories. They suck. > They're certainly not worth being a hypocrite. MIKE: Yeah, Donald, don't read those stories and make fun of them. CROW: That's our job. > >Donald, grow up. <-- Yes, this sentence ends in a preposition. TOM: Gee, what a lucky sentence. One day, I'm gonna have a sentence all of my own, which ends in a proposition, when I grow up. > Post fan fiction and encourage writers. Nobody wants to hear us argue, > not even if we try to be cute about it. I don't want to hear your > comments because I doubt you can be impartial and reasonable any more. CROW: [bad french accent] I don't wanna hear about it no more, you stupid english k-nig-it. > >Let's stop quarreling. > >If you must insult me via email, then do it. Will you? TOM: Yeah, follow my example. > >If you feel you need the last word, you may have it. > > > > > > CROW: Does this mean it's over? > > > > > > MIKE: I think this guy is waiting for Donald to have his last word. > > > > > > > TOM: No one will be allowed entry to the exciting carridge return scene. > > > > > ALL: GET ON WITH IT!!! > > >Donald, since you can't stand writers who provide self-serving "exigesis," > I'm obligated to provide you one to explain this post. ALL: ARRRGGHH!! MIKE: We take it back. Give us more carridge returns. > > You inspired me with your underhanded tactics, so I replied in kind: CROW: You started it. TOM: No, you did. CROW: You did. TOM: You did. CROW: You did. TOM: You did. MIKE: [stays the 'bots] Guys, [points to screen] HE started it. > > Personal insults: > You insulted me outright. Although the harshest name I call you is > "bully," I imply that you are obvious, pretentious, etc. ALL: [gasp] CROW: He used the 'b' word. TOM: He should have his mouth washed out with soap. MIKE: Down with his net access, I say! > I think the worst insult is exposing your inability to be impartial, > since reasonable people prize that in themselves. CROW: I think I'm a prize, and I'm being impartial about myself. > > Playing to the audience: My humility intro, admissions of fault, etc. > Although I'm sincere about all of that, using some of them in a > quarrel is underhanded. TOM: I'm allowed to call myself useless, but no-one else is. So there. > > Straw man tactics: > I accuse you of rushing in to defend Jason, and ridicule you, since > he can take care of himself. This is a straw man tactic assuming, of > course, you didn't rush in to defend Jason from some imagined attack. CROW: [falsetto] Now, dear, stop playing with your straw men. You're geting the floor filthy. TOM: [kid] Awww, mom. > > I hope Jason didn't see it as an insult. He's adult enough not to care. MIKE: But, if he did see it as an insult, is he still adult enough not to care? > > Divide and conquer: > Clearly, after this, anyone who rushes in to defend Donald risks being > labeled a moron. If anyone does want to defend him, perhaps he should > include the preface "I am not a moron but ..." TOM: Has this guy ever heard of "poisoning the well"? MIKE: I think he invented it. > > Pre-emptive strike: > I've confessed to being a "rude pretentious jerk" twice. > You didn't add anything new with your insult. MIKE: Just reenforcing the obvious. > > I also dared you to read my last two stories, but only at the cost > of your honor. TOM: I dare you to read those stories. CROW: Never, sir. That would be a slur on my honour. > > Irony: > This was a self-inflicted wound caused by the word "exigesis." > > Spelling flame: > This was a self-inflicted wound caused by the word "exigesis." TOM: The thing I like the most is the fresh and new jibes he finds. > > Reverse psychology: > Will I really let you have the last word? Guess. > Actually I will. Do you have any self-restraint? MIKE: Remember kids, Catch 22 isn't a book, it's a killing stroke. > > Reasoning: > You attacked me with an underhanded tactic. Shouldn't you be > prepared for an attack in kind? CROW: Do unto others before they do unto you. > > Let's stop quarreling. The question is: can you stop?> CROW: No, can you stop? TOM: No, can you? CROW: No, can you? [Mike rests his hands on the 'bots heads, and they stop.] > > Sarcasm: > You are not a hypocrite. TOM: Oo, that's.. that's... what was that? > >Want more? I've been waiting for someone like you to expose yourself. >I'm just learning the art of the personal insult. >Won't you please stay a while? CROW: Come and be my special friend. > > > > > > > CROW: ARGH! TOM: Not this again! [Both 'bots break down and start cvrying.] > > > > > [Mike pats them.] MIKE: There, there guys. Just think of it as a large portion of those 300 lines that you don't have to bother with. [The 'bots sniff and stop crying.] > > > > CROW: You're right, Mike. TOM: It's a pity that the entire message isn't like this. MIKE: Wouldn't that be rather boring? CROW: Better than being painful. > > > > > > > > > >Donald, are you still here? ALL: ARGH! MIKE: Geez, give us a warning next time. > >Would you believe me if I said I was just kidding? >I was but I'm no Don Rickles. CROW: You're no Milton Berle either. > >I've been waiting for someone take offense and rip into me. CROW: Someone just asking for us to hit them? There's gotta be a catch. > Many anonymous posters troll: I've been chomping at the bit and you > happened to be the only one to take the bait. (Sorry about the metaphors.) [Tom tries to understand this, and his head starts smoking. Mike quickly removes Tom's head and put's it on backwards.] TOM: Ahh, much better, Mike. > > Even though I said this was a personal attack, how can it be? > Your insult was only two sentences. There's no way I can attack you > without making most of the stuff up. If they hit home, ask yourself why. CROW: If a paragraph inspires him to write this, what will happen to us? MIKE: I'm sure Doctor Forrester will protect us. [pause] ALL: WE'RE DOOMED! > >I don't know if you can accept my apology. I don't know if the apology > would be sincere. Your attack was sudden, irrelevant, and underhanded. CROW: As oppsed to warning me about it, having it on topic, and been totally transparent. [Mike turns Tom's head around to face the creen.] TOM: Aw. I was enjoying that. MIKE: You can't have it easy forever. > > My attack was meant to be entertaining. Some people might find it so > scathing that they will never read my stories ever again. Unpaid > writers (even me or especially me) crave attention. CROW: I get attention by posting flames with the word "Story" in the title. TOM: Yeah, Mike. Whatever happened to Zoe? MIKE: I think that's a question better left unanswered. > > I have no personal quarrel with you if this silliness dies as it should. > You invited the attack, as did I, by showing off. > We're guilty of the same thing. CROW: But some are more guilty than others. > >You attacked well. I fought you to a draw. Go in peace, and > return with jewels for the women, trinkets for the children, and > stories of heroes and gods that you can tell us all. CROW: [deep voice] You have done well, my son. TOM: Gee, he seems so nice now. > > Perhaps I should say this seriously: > Let's not argue. Let's write stories - and not clever thinly-veiled > insults. Nobody wants to read acrid posts from either of us. MIKE: But that doesn't stop me form doing it though. > >I'm not trying to be emotionally manipulative by provoking you to anger > then dismissing your feelings by apologizing. CROW: Wait.. no.. in fact, I am. > > I'm anonymous. I don't have a reputation worth protecting, but you do. > (I'm not saying that you should get an anonymous account and attack me > from there but you should protect your reputation.) MIKE: Am I hiding behind anonyminity? No, and neither should you. CROW: Hehehe. No-one knows who I am, so I can do whatever my little heart desires. > >You dislike my style. To tell you the truth, I've grown weary of this net > persona, weary of the stories, weary of the writing, weary of this group. MIKE: We're weary of reading this post. > > My own fault. ALL: AGREED! > > In two weeks, I'll leave this group. I have to be here to get feedback, > but you don't - not for the next two weeks. There must be some nice > person who will send you stories that other writers post, but if there > isn't, I'll repost them myself and hop away. MIKE: Er, what's he saying? TOM: I think he's saying that he'll only be here for another two weeks, so he'll mail Donald other people's stories. MIKE: No, I don't think so. > > If you insist on staying and causing trouble, I'll go. > >This post has gotten too weird. CROW: Speak the truth, brother. >I've been insincere for so long that I'm clumsy writing any other way. > > >[Donald, if you're still here, the rest of this post doesn't concern you. > I explain my stories again - I can't help it. I'm not doing it to provoke > you.] MIKE: You can help it. Be a man. Don't post email! TOM: Mike, you do realise that we're being incredibly sexist in assuing that the poster is a male. MIKE: If we assume that the poster's a female, we'll get hate mail complaining about assuimng that females call themselves pretentious. CROW: Remember kids, Catch 22 isn't a book, it's a killing stroke. > > > > >Since this used to be a creative group, allow me to yak about my stories: TOM: *Used* to be? Has it gone the way of alt.startrek.creative? CROW: With this guy posting, yes. > >My last story, the self-referential parody, was honestly planned several > weeks ago when somebody emailed me a nice comment about one of my > wacko stories. It's meant to be a frame story, a story that overflows > its text so the reader and the writer are involved. It's like this post > (but without the sarcasm) in that the narrator explains the story in > asides and the reader has to guess whether he is BSing. And it does parody > some of the comments that Donald objected to - comments like this where > I explain myself. TOM: It's a story where even the writer doesn't know what's going on. > > I didn't get the idea after the fact. I got the idea from watching the > Outer Limits episode in which the two invisible Martians with a time > machine witness a murder on earth and replay the scene over and over > again as they try to understand the characters. CROW: Hey, I liked _Controlled Experiment_. Get yer own original ideas. > >My second to last story was inspired when I encountered Will's grammar. > (Thanks, Will!) It's the old Pygmalion-My Fair Lady story. MIKE: Will's gramma was Pygmalion? > > Just one word about the ending: MIKE: Pickle. TOM: Offshoot. CROW: Existential. > > Note that in "My Fair Lady," Eliza (Audrey Hepburn) ends up staying > with the Professor (Rex Harrison), but in "Pygmalion," the author implies > that she marries Freddie (Howard Hell-should-I-know). What original myth? TOM: Howard Hell-should-I-know really shot everyone, 'because no-one could remember his last name. > > The narrator misinterprets people's motivations so if you choose to read > the story, be forewarned. I would be an idiot to explain it after this. CROW: Didn't he just explain it? MIKE: Yep. CROW: So he's an idiot? MIKE: Yep. > > The last story is somewhat offending, but this one is perhaps sickly sweet. TOM: *This* one? What this one? This has been a flame, not a story. > >That's the end of my explanation. ALL: HURRAH! TOM: The exegesis is over! > >Donald was right. I am a rude pretentious jerk. [They open their mouths, then pause.] MIKE: Naah. CROW: Too easy. TOM: Anyone can pot shot. > >--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** >Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. >Please, report inappropriate use to firstname.lastname@example.org >For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to email@example.com >If you have any problems, address them to firstname.lastname@example.org MIKE: Last minute information to try to save the post. CROW: Too late. TOM: Can we go now? MIKE: Wait. One last nostalgic glimpse of thsoe blank lines. > > > MIKE: Right, let's roll. [All get up and leave.] [..@..2..3..4..5..6] [Tom and Crow are back in their "Let's Be Inappropriate!" outfits.] TOM: And after that short break, we're back, with a fascinating documentary on the private life of a Mrs Stockingbottom... [Mike comes in.] MIKE: Haven't you guys learned anything? Some things are best left not to do. CROW: Hey, Nelson. We spent two days on this skit, so we're gonna perform it. [Mike shakes his head and presses the button.] MIKE: What do you think, sir? [DEEP 13] DR F.: [dialing on the phone] I think those 'bots of yours have given me a great idea for a new TV show. [into phone] Hello, CC? Have I got a deal for you. [SOL] TOM: Hey, what about our share? We came up with the idea. [DEEP 13] DR F.: ...one moment please. [to screen] Yeah, like I'm ever gonna share any of it with you. [into phone] Push the button! [Realises his mistake, then pushes the button himself.] \ | / \ | / ---O--- / | \ / | \ <whoosh> Mystery Science Theater 3000 and its related characters and situations are trademarks of and (c) 1994 by Best Brains, Inc. All rights reserved. DR F.: Who the hell are Beavus and Butthead? Use of copyrighted and trademarked material is for entertainment purposes only; no infringement on the original copyrights or trademarks held by Best Brains, Inc. is intended or should be inferred. This is not a personal attack on the poster, just what he posted. Jamas Enright "Answers answered and questions questioned." >Donald, if you insist on reading it, don't take it seriously. After >putting you through an emotional wringer, I reveal that the reply was >merely more self promotion. Fun at your expense. Whoopee.Back to my MiST page.