February 2003

The reception for the December issue of The Museletter was impressive. People who’ve never mentioned enjoying my site liked it. They’re the sort who only laughs when laughing at others. Teenagers. Anyway, I don’t think that it is necessarily my site, but something has caused the newspaper staff to make fewer typos. No more editorials with typos into the double digits! Great! There was even an article in which I didn’t see any grammatical errors. Unfortunately, the articles continued to be pointless, if not as poorly written. First, the discomfort of the editorials:

The first article describes one girl’s realization that she goes to school. She goes to school with other people. I’m not kidding. I think that’s all that this article really says. For some reason, she also pointed out the remarkable fact that people change from elementary school to high school, and that she can't believe that they're almost done with high school (like she probably says in EVERY article she's EVER written). Blah, blah, blah, she's got friends in her newspaper staff. Who cares? So what? (These are answers that no one can answer, especially her.)

The second editorial: Bad intro sentence! They all have terrible intro sentences! It’s as though the newspaper teacher never taught these kids about "hooks." Anyway, this member of the newspaper staff tells us that she "tends to avoid the news..." I bet you do. No wonder you couldn't point out Iraq on a map or tell us which is "bad," North or South Korea. And the point of this article is to inform us that she's jaded. Wah. I'm a jaded teenager. Wah. Someone cram a typewriter down her throat. And why does she call it a "theory" that news is "like, such a downer"? (Okay, I added the comma after the "like," but she'd probably TALK like that.) Any of the stories in the part I bracketed off in her article would have made a more interesting article than this girl whining about her apathy about the world. She acts as though the apathy is the world's fault, not her own. But wait. That's not all!

Her second paragraph suddenly becomes theatrical, with metaphors and light/dark imagery she stole from some or every author. And she begins to talk about the museum and some art she saw. Um. So the article is about art? Okay then. So she saw the Mona Lisa. She said it was the first time she REALLY saw it, which means what? That the other times she was distracted by her touchy-feely boyfriend? Then she says that "there are no words to describe it." Then, please, don't try. Put away your computer. Don't finish the article.

But, ahh! She tries to finish it.

She says she discovered the mystery of ML's smile! But - a disappointment. She only lists a lot of theories. Her stupid, stupid theories. She says that her description doesn't do the artwork justice... tru dat! She says that there's a moral to this story. It's some stupid moral, such as "Stop watching the news, it's a downer. Go get high instead." Hey, there's a MORON to this story...

I don’t understand why it seems like such a big deal for the newspaper staff to “pick up the paper” or “watch the news.” They always use that to introduce subjects of war and so on, as if it isn’t an ordinary or expected thing for them to know about Iraq or nuclear weapons. Anyway, the next editorial is also about the war. This is a whiny, bleeding-heart stupid piece of crap about how war is bad. She doesn’t argue that Bush is an idiot, which he clearly is, or any of the legitimate arguments that other people and other countries have introduced. She just says war is bad. She says that we (her peers) are desensitized to the war? Excuse me, kiddo, but you're the one for whom it "suddenly" "hit" that the country "may go to war." (She can't name the Secretary of State, in other words.) The next paragraph repeats this stuff... And so does the next. The following paragraph is confusing. She talks about advertisements for some reason. She thinks that it glorifies soldiers to be in ads for toilet bowl cleaners and that they should be glorified. I'm not sure I follow her logic. BUT she doesn't want to go to war, and she says that the war is unnecessary. Oh, but it doesn't matter, she doesn't have to back up anything she says with actual proof... after all, it's just a high school paper.

Sigh.

If the picture that was the inspiration for the article "said a million" words, then why couldn't she muster three hundred good ones for the article?

Only two articles about current events were possible for the newspaper staff. The next one is about Disney. Now we're done discussing the unfortunate teenage apathy to war and have moved onto the unfortunate teenage apathy to Mickey and his waning magic. Wah. I'm rich and have visited Disney too many times for it to be magical anymore. Wah. And listen to her "great life lesson": "Growing older causes a person to lose their sense of childish fun and naivety" Cite the obvious, kiddo! What an idiot.

Next is a treatise about love by a girl who shall never understand love. It begins "A fairly large majority of my life, I've had a boyfriend." Ahem. Cough. Sputter. DIE. So, she's always had a boyfriend, right until semester break, when she (remarkably) realizes that she doesn't need a boy to be happy. But then how does one explain that she only feigns to prefer girls for friends to catch a new boyfriend? Idiocy. Anyway, she argues that girls are better at complimenting other girls because instead of simply saying that she "looks pretty," like boys do, girls will go the extra mile and into "much more detail." They'll say to her, "I really like that shirt! It makes you look so skinny!" I'm not making this quotation up. The next sentence would have made a much more interesting thesis for the article, that girls' compliments are more genuine than boys' because they are not required. One could delve into lesbians' compliments. Anyway, just a thought. By the way, how professional is this newspaper supposed to be? Should I make fun of her for saying "dissing"? (Idiot.)

The following article explores the origin of Valentine’s Day, and it does it very well. It was a good article. (A rare occurrence.) There were funny jokes. I approve. Unfortunately, it is less than ideally placed, right under the article about whorishly dating as many boys as possible because mass media tells us to do so.

The next article is about this kid who switched from football to debate. For those of you who weren't aware, I'm on the debate team, and so I know him. I'm not going to censor his name because I think he's over eighteen anyway, and also I don't feel like it. And it's a fun name. BOO-eee. Yeah.

The article wasn't so bad, actually. I mean, if you beat yourself on the head with a mallet (a speaker award) and you forget that articles are supposed to be relevant, it's not so bad. And I'm glad that my debate team was able to help Dan develop his intellectual side. Super glad. I'm so glad that he's a "master debater." Yes, she really did call him that. But she misspelled "debater." Anyway.

Comment: Dan said that being a debater "doesn't mean you're a nerd who doesn't like to have fun." Of course, unless you're the creator of this site.

No. I don't flip through TV channels. Please... don't do an article about reality shows, two years after the phenomena has ceased to wonder. Please. Say you're not! PLEASE!

I can't read this tripe. But I have to read it. To count typos. *grumble*

Oh, God. She wants us to know that many people think the shows are superficial. Then, darn it, why are you writing an article about them? Okay, I guess the justification is the fact that people are "addicted" to it (the idiots are, she means). I thought that maybe she'd tell us WHY they like it. Go into the American idiocy that makes up American culture. But, no. She only indulges the idiocy. And for some reason, she ends the article with "Round and round reality goes, and when it stops nobody knows." Huh? Anyway, sigh, the idiocy of this newspaper shall never stop.

Darn it. Why can't they spell embarrassing correctly in that title? Are they doing that purposefully?

By the way, they had another band interview. Is there anyone at my school who isn't in a band?

Losers:
Worst article- "Guys, who needs them?"
Most typos (at 9)- "Reality shows are on the rise" (brilliant title, eh?)

I hate my school.

Back to top.