Editorial letters

ASSUMING THAT ONLY 1% of the readership bothered to reply each time we sent CoN out, we would be receiving an average of 10 e-mails per issue.

Oddly, this is not the case.

Besides the strange and constant arrival of e-mails with requests to be un-subscribed (so much for instructions at the end of each issue), the e-mails that we receive can be counted on one hand, and without, usually, raising too many fingers.

Of these few e-mails, there is, to our surprise, the occasional intelligent reply. The "intelligent reply" is a rarity, as usually the majority of mail that we receive, seems to be a supernova of stupidity that just blew up somewhere in cyber-space.

Now, we realize that CoN is not exactly your average intelligent magazine, with either a political, technical or musical manifesto. If it's a rant, or it's just plain ironic with no references to real life, chances are, you will find it here.

We don't think of CoN as the King of `Zines, nor we think of ourselves as the lowest of the low. We believe we hold a tiny yet significant portion of insanity, easy to digest, available for your average intelligent person who has had the gift of a sense of humor.

And considering that our articles vary from those with depth and intelligence, to those that are completely stupid, it is surprising to see that either a) hardly anyone bothers to say anything at all or b) they flip their nutsuck in a frenzy of dickplay about what has been said.

Perhaps the majority, when they see CoN in their `box, just hit the ol' DEL key, rather than finding out how to unsubscribe. Others read through it, and then forget about it. Or maybe, they just like CoN the way it is, not expecting too much and are used to the type of articles we manage to dig from the gutter of human minds.

We'll never know. But as the "stupid e-mails" keep on coming, at least we have the assurance, that someone, out there, read the issue, misunderstood it to the best of their ability, and found it disturbing enough to hit Reply.

The first e-mail to arrive to our boxes was by Stiffe. Clearly this is a joke e-mail sent in order to tick off Jeff Wright, author of that boring "movie list!" and to shred both him and his section to pieces. It's, needlessly to say, funny. Jeff said he found it funny. Jeff also knows personally Stiffe. Stiffe might not find what Jeff has in mind funny.

Great issue. However, Jeff don't know shit about movies. Therefore, I'd like to write a complaint to the movie critic who thinks he's hot shit.

First of all Jeff, you so-called "long winded bastard," how the fuck did you become an expert. You sort of forgot the best movie of all time on your list! If you haven't figured it out by now, you silly fuck, I'm talking about "Transformers, The Movie". And those other movies you list, sweet fuck on wheels, what the hell were you thinking?

Now, as a benefit for the real readers of CoN, I have taken the opportunity to include the real list of movies that should have been included in this issue. They are as follows:

1. "Transformers, The Movie" - but hell, you already knew that, didn't you.

2. "Debbie Does Dallas" - this was the definitive movie for all of mankind. It is because of this movie that men can relieve themselves at very stressful times. Just like how Jeff "the movie critic" does, except that he has never experienced a stressful time. He just likes to whack off a lot.

3. "no frills, The Movie" - hold your breath, it's about to be released soon. Talk about action-packed, it stars past and current employees of the no frills chain. It's filled with heart-pounding, non-stopping blood pouring action scenes and hot sexy steamy love shots that are just tame enough so this flick won't have a XXX rating. It's awesome with a capital A!

So there you have it folks, the real "movies to see" list. Don't take any bullshit from the palm-lovin', cock-strockin', dick fuck Jeff. He just don't know shit.

Sincerely yours, a devoted and loyal CoN subscriber

Our second e-mail is from David Norris. We can't call this e-mail stupid, since it falls under that same type of `rant' that makes CoN. There are a few discrepancies however that will get him flamed.

From: David Norris <davidn@rundel.com> Subject: you're only encouraging them by publishi To: "'leandro@capnasty.org'" <leandro@capnasty.org>

Well I been on your list for some time, and even though some of your articles are great, others seem to be pushing the envelope of mediocrity. But I've never bothered to complain, not just because it's free but nothing was ever bad enough to warrant the time, even that 40 page treatise on movie monsters or whatever it was a few months ago (The Last Dinosaur - Ed.), at least after a few minutes of holding the pgdn key I could be done with that, and maybe it could have been interesting if I had a week to read it. but that relationships according to garp (Gard E. Abrahamsen - Ed.)letter and that ridiculous article on god just cry out for ridicule.

Now maybe you want your readers to have a chance to have their say, and so you feel obliged to print the occasional spew from a reader, however moronic, but the least you could do is have a running commentary mocking the crap to make it entertaining. First, out of the entire article that lilith chick (Lilith DemHareIs - Ed.) wrote, he takes one word, 'somebody', and from there gets on his personal soap box to harangue us all about role models and skewed perceptions of who one should be... And the least he could have done was look up irony and oxymoron and use the right one. I could go on for days on his inanity, but I trust you get my point.

Now on to god stuff: Appreciably short is the only good thing I can say. How is one to reconcile the following statements: 'I dont believe in god.'

simple enough, you say god don't exist.

'I don't think that God even has a 'will''

'Our job, I believe, is to follow the path that he has laid out for us...' (which would require a will no?)

Well, now I see. An atheist who now has very definite opinions about a being he doesn't believe exists. In fact, every word he says after the opening line makes it abundantly clear that he thinks there's a god. But besides the fact that the entire premise of the article is paradoxical, it also makes a narrow minded and thoughtless observation about god's will. To look at it from a believer's point of view, knowing and following god's will makes perfect sense. In almost every religion god has a mouthpiece who he speaks through, and that is how he lets his will known, at least as far as what he wants his children to do. It takes no blasphemous assumption on the part of the believer to accept that god doesn't want them to kill people, only faith that it's god telling them.

Well, enough complaining for me. I did enjoy the other articles, even the one about the watermelon boy.

Sarcastro

You got it big mouth

Translation:

I am much more brilliant than these losers because I sit back here and mock something rather than putting something forward myself, opening up myself for potential criticism. I will not do that because some them may be wittier than I am, and may make me look and feel bad.

I am deeply offended by this ezine even though I can't recall someone putting a gun to my head and ordering me to read it. The articles are shit, my articles would be much better if I actually wrote any.

The person who doesn't believe in god is stupid because they haven't read articles and books I've read, which were written by other people. But I will adopt their arguments and regurgitate them here. I would instantly join a cult if a prominent intellectual said it was the alternative thing to do.

But don't unsubscribe me, I enjoy complaining.

ONE LAST WORD before we leave you with the issue. Some have pointed out that they feel that the `themes' in CoN limit their creativity, as they feel they HAVE to write about whatever topic CoN is about. That is wrong. The Themes in CoN are given for inspirational purposes only. We believe it is easier to write something down if you have a starting block, rather than having to think of something up. This however doesn't mean that we will not accept articles with subjects different than the theme of the issue. Creativity should not be limited in anyway. So if you feel like writing something which has nothing at to do with the issue, don't stop yourself. It's always welcomed here at CoN. And just so you know, the next Theme for CoN will be about "Movies and Television", but this doesn't mean your articles have to be.

Have a great issue.