Almost Lowest Common Denominator
From Encyclopedia Of Stupid
 | This article contains snarky meta-criticism. You can safely ignore it.
|
Almost Lowest Common Denominator is stupid.
But they can afford to pay $12 for a crappy bag of popcorn and a small coke.
Note: above the contents box represents the sum total of the original article entitled "Almost Lowest Common Denominator"
The meaning of this
After further study by the Institute of Things Retarded People Post on This Wiki, we have determined that the above-mentioned comment regarding $12, popcorn, and Coke was definitely originally posted by a member of the speds (special-education students).
What this means for the future of mankind
Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
The effect of this post on EOS readers
It pisses us off, because we waste time waiting for the page to load, only to have it say stupid shit like this!
Redeeming feature of this article
Is this joke. Q. Where do you find a dog with no legs? A. Wherever you left him!
Why the original author is better than me
He's a Gold Star article author.
What that makes me
A speds member (see above).
A Few Moments With Agentseven - the Original Author of This Article
S194: There has been some small amount of controversy regarding your article titled "Almost Lowest Common Denominator." Care to elaborate on why you wrote this article?
A7: Clearly not my best work (laughs).
S194: Something nonsensical about popcorn and coke?
A7: Well to be fair, it was stubbed.
S194: Ah, actually no, it wasn't.
A7: Wasn't it? OK, not to get too defensive here, but I think my record speaks for itself. I'm a multi-GoldStar writer. Do I really have to defend myself over this one stupid fucking article?
S194: Not to me, certainly not - but this was one of at least two.
A7: Two?
S194: Yes, there was... let's see... ah yes "Lowest Common Denominator."
A7: Oh shit, I remember that. OK you have to understand something. I was here from day one. You know this.
S194: Yep. It was you, me, and #rfa.
A7: Right. And we were writing all kinds of bullshit into this thing.
S194: Sure.
A7: We didn't know it would eventually become an INTERNET PHENOMENON and attract the kind of blazing scrutiny that the criticism of this article suggests we are attracting.
S194: What might be bannable today was simply the childlike banter of a bunch of nubs who were the original contributors when nobody else even knew this existed.
A7: Absolutely!
S194: Well, so how do you feel about the article now?
A7: I have no regrets. I had written one of my earliest GS articles, "Hollywood," IIRC, and you know, back then linking anything at all gave you a sea of red and all I was looking to do was blue it up some. That's it. So, OK - two crappy articles. So what? Have you read the Hollywood article?
S194: Very funny.
A7: Goddamn right! I mean... thanks!
S194: Not at all. So in context, how funny do you think these two articles are, then, if someone were to read the Hollywood entry?
A7: Not funny at all.
S194: Mark for deletion then?
A7: I don't think so. It's like the whole sometime before 1975 thing. It's a thing. People know what I'm talking about when they hear "lowest common denominator." It can apply to a lot of things. I say let's make it a forced EOS meme!
S194: Can you force a meme though?
A7: 1984.
S194: Point taken.
