[Following is an experimental piece I wrote for theNewerYork a year-or-so ago. It combines mathematics and juvenile self-loathing. All that’s missing from this Neopolitan combo is the strawberry flavor.]
1. Neo-Yiddish Poo-Poo Sequence: X + [shm(X-Y)]
X = thing you want to poo-poo
Y = consonant(s) prefixing X; if there are no consonant(s) prefixing X, Y=0
Example: You are at a friend’s party. Another attendee at the party invited Chase even though nobody likes him and he is a tool and he is dating your ex-girlfriend. You are cooling your head outside and moments later, he also steps outside. He has the audacity to ask if you can spare a cigarette. He knows you don’t smoke. Respond with the Neo-Yiddish Poo-Poo Sequence.
cigarette = thing you want to poo-poo
X = cigarette
Y = c
cigarette + [shm(cigarette-c)]
= cigarette shmigarette
2. Conditional Question-Subervsion Hypothesis: I should(emphasis) * [(Q*-0.1)/Q] + …if I were + [(D)P]
Q = ironic idea suggested by entity for something you can do
P = derogatory term
D = [a ≡ P begins with a consonant] ∨ [an ≡ P begins with vowel]
Example: You are standing outside a friend’s party and have been joined by Chase, who is an idiot and who knows that you don’t smoke, but he asked you for a cigarette anyway. You tell him that you do not smoke. Chase wonders if you guys are chill. He suggests that if you were to pick up smoking, you might be less stressed and more chill. What is the best way to apply the Conditional Question-Subversion Hypothesis in this situation? Show your work.
Q = I should pick up smoking
P = total idiot
D = a
[(I should pick up smoking*-0.1)/I should pick up smoking)] = -0.I should pick up smoking
Based on the Principle of Ironic Rephrasal, -0.X has all of the properties of Implied Inherent Negativity, thus -0.I should pick up smoking = I should pick up smoking
I should pick up smoking + …if I were + [(a)total idiot]
= I should pick up smoking …if I were a total idiot.
3. The Norris-Allen Algorithm: N + (T*√2) + Just kidding
N = corn-balled one-liner from a B-grade or C-grade action movie
T = normal amount of time it takes for someone to realize you are/might be joking
Because √2 is an irrational number, term (T*√2) is often expressed as a pause just long enough to make things uncomfortable.)
Example: You rejoin your friend’s party. The host of the party approaches you. You suspect that it was she who invited Chase. It seems like she intentionally arouses contention so that she might make herself more relevant or interesting or whatever. She can tell you are upset because you’re having a hard time opening your beer. She opens the beer for you. She smiles and says, “Don’t step on any toes,” though you can tell she means the opposite. Respond to her employing the Norris-Allen Algorithm where N is equal to a corn-balled one-liner from Braddock: Missing in Action III.
N = “I don’t step on toes, I step on necks.”
T = 1.1 seconds (based harmonic mean of host’s standard conversational pace with blood alcohol level > .001 points above legal limit)
I don’t step on toes, I step on necks + (1.1*√2) + just kidding
I don’t step on toes, I step on necks + (≈1.555719) + just kidding
= I don’t step on toes, I step on necks. (Pause just long long enough to make things uncomfortable.) Just kidding.
4. Type 1 Negative Patronymic Quotient: -0.X / [Y(?) + Good ol’ Y + (M/{Z})]
X = how annoyed you are
Y = first name of subject you are deriding
M = surname of subject you are deriding
{Z} = set of puns and derogatory terms rhyming-with or related to M
Determination of NPQ application determined by probability of {Z} distribution. If {Z} is null, Type 1 NPQ is null.
Example: You are sitting alone on the couch at your friend’s party. You are on your fifth beer. Some guy from work whose name you can’t remember but who is super annoying sits down on the opposite end of the couch and strikes up a conversation with you. “Good party,” he says over the music. “You know that Chase Ursal dude? His Lexus has some sweet-ass ground effects, bro.” If possible, provide {Z} and articulate proper Type 1 NPQ response. Choose one condition from {Z} to complete your calculation.
X = super annoyed
Y = Chase
M = Ursal
{Z} = {Ass-sal, Asshole, Urse-hole, Ass-salve}
Based on the Principle of Ironic Rephrasal, “-0.super annoyed” has all of the properties of Implied Inherent Negativity.
Type 1 NPQ: Chase? + Good ol’ Chase + (Ursal/{Urse-hole})
= (said with IIN) Chase? Good ol’ Chase Urse-hole.
5. The Rocks-Off Principle: {A}B ⊃ -{A}(Well, whatever gets your rocks off).
A = condescending tone
B = something a dickhead wants
Example: You are at your friend’s party and have had more beers than you can count. You have been saying things you will probably regret later, but you don’t care because everyone is dumb. You hear Chase whispering to his dickhead friends that he wants to teach you a lesson. This dickhead clowder then approaches you with Chase at the helm. He says, “Leave, or you’re going to be more than hungover in the morning.” Based on the information given, if you reply with the Rocks-Off Principle, will this force Chase to make good on his threat?
A = {condescending tone inferred from implication of threat}
B = leaving you “more than hungover in the morning”
{condescending tone inferred from implication of threat}to leave you “more than hungover in the morning” ⊃ -{condescending tone inferred from implication of threat}(Well, whatever gets your rocks off.)
Based the Apparent Reciprocated Condescension, Chase will make good on B. However, based on the Overpositive Schlitz-Factor, you can find no good reason not to suggest that Chase is free to do whatever will get his rocks off.
ben van loon 