That’s beautiful.
I swear, I just spit coffee all over my monitor & keyboard!! That’s too, too funny.
Um…Hello, Tech Ops? There appears to be something wrong with my keyboard. It acts like it’s shorted out, or…something.
Thank you. I used to have a book review site and used it to great effect with the occasional rabid whack-job. We’d usually go two or three rounds with them sending in progressivly more insane gibberish, DEMANDING that I read their e-mail and me sending back the same rejection notice.
Fenris
Perhaps you should direct him here for further commentary and deconstruction.
Dear Sir or Madam:
Hey, pal, look. I don’t tell you how to line up your garden tools by size, color, season of use and handedness, you don’t tell me how to write a review.
What Fenris said. please please please it’s absolutely perfect.
Dear Sir:
The origional reviews of the clips you mentioned discussed the socio-economic impacts of their viewing in the context of neo-puritism and neo-stalinism on the mainstream segmented market place and cootie transmission.
While those reviews were both compelling and informative. We felt that with today modern internet patron the lengthy debate sparked by those reviews would generate not only much unwanted bandwidth but also create a dangerous level of thought in society.
So in accordance with section 1493.35.213-s.21 of the US Federal Law, which we were unfortunatly forced to agree with, we removed those reviews.
This left us with a substantial amount of unfilled space and a rapidly closing deadling in which to post suitable reviews.
Our viewer submitted reviews were somewhat sparce, we had 2 choices left. “Micky’s blossoming womanhood:An illustrated guide to anthrapomoriphic fictional charact cross-dressing and latent necrophillia – A beginner’s Primer” and “OG SMASH” – repeated adnausium for 2,104 pages and 3 lines at a 10 point New Times Roman font.
Left with those alternatives we were forced to realize that sometimes, even with serious time constrains, self-generated material is better than nothing.
I hope this explains the circumstances pertaining to the current reviews, and with your permission, I’d like to retain your submission for later inclusion on the site. While interesting, I’m unfortunatly not able to promise that it will be used before the “OG SMASH” piece due to “OG SMASH” being a more though pervoking arguement. But rest assured, sooner or later we will get around to using it.
Thank you for your submission and feedback!
If you re-read the thread thinking of animated shorts as short pants with motion or some other activity, it’s even more entertaining.
I’ll nth Fenris’s submission.
Still waiting for Esprix…
Eutychus,
Maybe the letter was an attempt at a joke.
I’d have to go with CRorex’s response, with Fenris’s a close second.
Oooh. It’s a tie between Fenris & CRorex, I think.
You wrote it, didn’t you?
Leave me alone!
Esprix
What’s wrong with the classics?
Hey
Suck my dick!
SUCK ON IT!
suckitsuckitsuckitsuckit!
Yours in Christ
Euty
shhhhh
Thanks to everyone for your suggestions. I’ve decided to take the high road and respond as follows :
Dear Sir,
Initially I wasn’t going to respond to your letter. We don’t get a lot of complaints here at the Encyclopedia and the ones we do get usually concern our not being able to update as often as we’d like. However, it’s rare when we get a letter as intelligent and well-written as yours and as people that intelligent and well-written often have KGB connections I though it best to respond.
It was never my or Tom’s intention to give deep psychological interpretations to the Disney shorts and I might suggest if that is what you’re seeing then maybe you’re reading too deeply. We wanted to do better in our write-ups than a one sentence synopsis and maybe provide a little light hearted commentary along the way. However, it appears we can’t win. In the first instance (“Donald’s Nephews”) you complain that we don’t deal with it realistically, and in the second (“Clock Cleaners”) you say that we don’t deal with it realistically enough! (By the way, the name “Big Ben” refers to the bell, not the clock tower. Just an FYI for those of you keeping score at home.)
We’re proud of what we’re doing at the Encyclopedia. Our site is rather unique on the web and is routinely cited by many as a reliable reference, including the online Enyclopedia Britannica. However, we do realize the benefits of healthy competition. Therefore, when you are prepared to put as much time, effort, energy, work, research and, dare I say, love into a site of this scope as we’ve put into ours, I’ll be more than happy to take a look.
Write if you get work and hang by your thumbs,
Yours,
Fahnstock P. Beaudry
I think what you mean to say is that he’s complaining that in “Donald’s Nephews” you deal with it too realistically.
Otherwise, well, I won’t rate-the-rant, but I like it.
Somewhat lacking in sledgehammer to the testicles references, Euty