[MiSTing] Story: Zoe on the Couch [1/1]
The Thad Man
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: <003303Z...@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: an26...@anon.penet.fi (an264537)
TOM: At least they're being open with their email address.
>X-Anonymously-To: alt.drwho.creative
>Organization: Anonymous forwarding service
>Reply-To: an26...@anon.penet.fi
>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 ab...@anon.penet.fi
>For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
>If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi
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.