A Rant About Various Sites Purporting to Be Loci of Rantasia
So what the Hell is up with these people who "rant" online? I do it, and I like to think that I do a fairly good job. But these other people, whose names I will leave out to protect the guilty (and only the guilty) are crappy. Everyone reads their sites even though they are on (gasp) Geocities, and everyone comments on how original they think these rantitioners are. Well, I'm here to say that the whole think stinks worse than last week's fish.
Firstly, think about it. Rants shouldn't be focused. It is for this reason that I will now divert your attention to the fact that focus isn't all it's cracked up to be, and from there to automatic focus. It always makes me look fat or out of focus, which is a stellarly hard word to type, at least once you've typed it as many times as I have, which isn't very many, so I guess I'm just stupid. But I'm willing to admit that. They're stupid too.
B) For the love of Eris, please just spell, if not correctly, at least within reason. "I w1ll haXX0r j00" is stupid. And what precisely is hacksor-ing anyway? Is it hacking, or is it something lewd, or both. Could I say "I w1ll suXX0r" if I was they? How about "I suXX0r s0 hard dAt I sh0uldn't hav3 t0 pay taXX0rs"? "I dr1ve a b1g traXX0r." "I c0me fr0m AlaXX0r." "Th1s fru1t 1s mad3 0f waXX0r." And grammar... 0r 3ls3.
Which brings me to my central point: g3t ch33ZZ3 0ut 0f 0ur nat10n'Z banXX0rs. Damn I'm good. Banxxors... I slay me.
3: Now we must come to the upleasant part. Sure, reading that crap is hard enough, what with the poor grammar, spelling, and all that, but once you penetrate the veil you see that what they are saying is basically: "Dude, I'm an anarchist and I'm just saying this stuff because its kewl to be different along with all my other punk anarchist friends." And I'm fully in support of meaningless anarchy in all its forms to keep us all interested, but I must say that people shouldn't think these things are new, different, or anything else. I'm not even saying anything new or different. All I do is spew bullshit which no one reads, so I guess that they, since they have people who read them, are more successfull than I.
But how can one measure success? Does it have to do with a yardstick? I use as my yardstick a man I met once who was a homeless person who claimed he was the black Rodney Dangerfield. I listened to him and then I gave him some money. I probably said this before. But still, that's a success, even if he was homeless, and wasn't in fact Rodney Dangerfield, and in fact may not have actually been anything more than a figment of my imagination and those of the people around me. Mass hallucinations are more common than you'd think. Take all of the UFOs. People see them, but they are in fact ignited swamp gas and weather balloons (but what the government doesn't tell you is that the gas was ignited by sinister aliens working with the CIA and the IMF to emasculate cattle in the midwest, crippling society there as we know it, but in fact the CIA is a counter-agent encouraging this because as we know there is no society in the midwest because it's just a mass-hallucination of the aliens, IMF, and a man named Herman who realized in 1794 that the West Coast is actually the Mississippi River and that the other half of the country is in fact a giant weather balloon). I've forgotten the central point of my rant, which is the mark of a good one, so I'll close by saying haXX0r blaXX0r waXX0r jaXX0r smaXX0r KeruaXX0r laXX0r j00 m00 j0ssar1an j0s3ff 0f aramath3a spanXX0r Karthag0 d3ll1nd0 3st
Oh, and did I mention that there is a problem of great proportions with the fact that the evidence suggests... oh, never mind, you don't care. Skr00 j00.