Things We Said Today
... or last April as the case may be.Eric Feezell is a hack. Eric "Hack" Feezell is a big, hacky, sack.
Feezell wrote an entry for one of the big "professional" blog/websites which I won't even dignify by naming, but we'll call it McHackey's. McHackey's is often funny, which is why I check it daily, but now they've gone and ruined it by posting some hack's tripe. Feezell totally copied my post Other Blogs, Episode 1 which, despite the name, is not about 'Star Wars' (sorry nerds, I know that fucked-up your Google hits). True, it's not a word-for-word copy and his version doesn't actually depict innocent people being slaughtered, but there's no doubt in my tiny brain that he lifted it. I plan on boycotting McHackey's until I get some sort of public apology on their site (offering me a job at a press conference with one of those big cardboard checks would be a good start) but unless I check the site I won't know if they've apologized. Impasse. I know that you, dear reader, will join me in my boycott and thus cannot alert me to the apology either.
I know what you're thinking: Won't a boycott be so crushing that they'll have to declare bankruptcy and, thus, be unable to offer you a job? Yes.
Believe me, I don't wield my internet power of boycott-calling lightly. It is important that McHackey's recognize the loss of my internet traffic (the ENTIRE 34 visits-per-day average) quickly and remedy the situation. A little research on the web reveals some notable boycotts in history, such as the U.S. boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics protesting the invasion of Afghanistan (because no country should invade and occupy Afghanistan) and the boycott of the Kellogg Company by iNtactivists supporting Genital Integrity (this is, I'm afraid, quite real).
And let's not forget a little boycott started in 1769 over taxation without representation. (In all fairness, that last one may not have worked out, so we'll just have to see what happens.)
[Update: Feezell is also a good sport.]
posted by tinyhands @ 11:59 PM
5 Comments:
hmm...his might have been a little funnier. seemed more "in the brain" of his character, and really made me believe that one could work in a cubicle.
but a ninja actually working as a ninja? meh. not as clever.
and you can't get all offended every time someone writes about ninjas. the ninja genre cannot be contained by just one man.
remember: pandas. do not forget the pandas.
If I had worked on it for the last 15 months, like Feezell, I would have come up with the Dilbert rip-off too.
Couldn't you get a ninja to "take care of" Feezell? If the ninja's good, and I'm sure he is, no one will ever have to know about it.
And now who do you think they're going to come after if something should happen to him?
Eric- I retract my insults, however, if you can't laugh at the rest of it (that a professional writer would copy me and that I could actually effectively boycott your publisher?) no further retraction of mine would do any good. I hope the fact that you created an empty blog entitled "Mr. McHack" indicates that you are, in fact, able to laugh at yourself as I do (at myself). If not today, then hopefully in the near future.
Post a Comment
<< Home