MiSTing: Ten Science Thingamajiggers

This is another one of these things that I found in that old archive I mentioned in the one of these I posted back in September. This is also the one I was saying had all the artifacts from it being done on what is, by now, a decidedly ancient word processing program. I'll be leaving them in because this is a fair bit longer than “Make Good Money At Home”. I'll also be posting it all at once, even if it is a bit longer than I'd prefer for that, simply because there are no good places to break it up.

There's a nod to a bit of continuity I'm not entirely sure is my own or something from the actual show. Right at the beginning, there's a line where Pearl threatens to send Observer into the theater again, and I cand't recall if I did that or if Best Brains did it. After all, it's been the better part of twenty years since it was something important enough for me to remember.

I'm sure the things I used as a base for this come from at least one technical article, but it's hard to piece together, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have understood any of it even if it had been possible.

Since this is going to be a longer one, I'm just going to wrap the intro up now and give a brief endcap after the main event.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ****************************

Title: Ten Science Thingamajiggers
Original author/s: unknown
MiSTing author: Jesse Shearer
Era: Castle

[Season 9 opening credits]

[Waiting Room.  Mike is in foreground, at the conrtol panel.  Crow and Servo 
are in background, talking in a strange fassion]
MIKE: Hi!  I�m Mike Nelson.  Welcome to the Satellite of Love.  Tom and Crow 
have decided to have a meaningless-science-babble contest.  As you can see, 
they�re practicing right now.  They�ll be ready soon, so I s�pose they�ll 
explain then.  We�ll be right back.

[commetials]

[Waiting Room.  Servo and Crow have joined Mike at the control panel]
SERVO: Ok, Nelson, here are the rules.  Crow and I will each take a turn at 
using the most big words to say the least.  Whoever goes on the longest 
without saying anything wins.
MIKE: And what does the winner get?
CROW: A dozen RAM chips.  And you�re the referee, Mike.
SERVO: I�ll go first.
MIKE: Go.
SERVO: In theory, bighorh sheep are mutable elements in the months between 
January and April.  Thusly the best time to factor for �x� on the nineth 
level of �H� is durring this time.  The effects of �x� can be fairly high 
(eg (99a)) or fairly low (eg (98d)) as compaired to the standardized norm.  
Insertion of such depends upon one�s level of experience and extenuating 
circumstances.
MIKE: Done?
SERVO: Yep.
MIKE: Fifteen seconds.  Translation?
SERVO: Sorry, Mike.  Can�t do it.
MIKE: You�re turn, Crow.
CROW: In the case of the sigma the delta has no place.  It is because they 
originate at two unique points of origin and... Pearl�s calling.
MIKE: Sorry, Crow.  You lose.  You only went three seconds before you said 
something.
SERVO: But she is, Mike!
MIKE: D�oh. [hits Pearl�s button] Yes, Pearl?
[Castle Forrester.  Pearl and Observer are in main room]
PEARL:[sounding serious] So, it�s finally come to the point where you�re 
trying to out-nonsense one another.  I always knew this day would come.  
That�s why I�ve been working on today�s experiment for quite some time.  
It�s called �Ten Science Thingamajiggers.�  It�s composed entirely of those 
little bits of nonsense at the end of spam emailings that usually go to the 
top email providers.  Brain Guy, send it.
OBSERVER: Must I?  They�ve only recently finished �Darkwing Duck: Schlock 
Treatment.�  They deserve at least *some* chance to heal, don�t they?
PEARL:[frustrated] Just send it!  Or would you rather I sent you up there 
again?
OBSERVER: Sending! [uses powers to start experiment]
[Waiting Room.  Buzzers and lights go off]
MIKE: AAAAHHHHHH!  Something Thingamajigger!
CROW: Round two to follow!
[6...5...4...3...2...1...theater]

MIKE: What now?

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@

MIKE:[slapping chest] AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!
CROW: Machine gun!

>Let  us  continue  to  suppose  that  the
>    incorporation  of  additional  mission
>constraints  is  functionally  equivalent
>        and  parallel  to  the  levels  of
>acceptability  from fairly high (eg (99a))
>to  virtual  gibberish

CROW: Like this stuff.

>  (eg  (98d)).   It
>seems  to  me  to  be  the  case  that

SERVO: ...this is complete nonsense to most people.

>the
>    incorporation  of  additional  mission
>constraints  adds  overriding  performance
>       constraints  to  the  evolution  of
>specifications  over  a given time period.

MIKE: Somehow that makes sense, but I can�t put my finger on how

>Although  this  approach  has  a  certain
>    attractiveness,  the  natural  general
>principle  that  will  subsume  this  case
>necessitates  that coagulative measures be
>applied  to possible bidirectional logical
>relationship approaches.

CROW: Like, say, this to complete meaninglessness.

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@

SERVO: Ah!  They�re machine gunning us!
CROW: Good.
MIKE: I don�t think so.  That was only one.
CROW: Don�t remind us!

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@

SERVO: AH!  They�re machine gunning us again!

>On the other hand, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of 
>features may >remedy and, at the same time, eliminate possible 
>bidirectional relationship approaches.

CROW: That means what, again?

>To characterize a linguistic level L, my proposed independent 
>structuralistic concept >adds explicit performance limits to all deeper 
>structuralistic conceptualization. So far,

SERVO: I have managed to perfect a meathod of using alot of words to say 
absolutely nothing.

>an important property of these three types of EC is holistically 
>compounded,

MIKE: Oh, these people are holistically compounded, all right.

>in the context of the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any 
>proposed >grammar.

CROW: These things, for instance, are not at all accurate in any important 
manner whatsoever.

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@                                      
>      >@

SERVO: Twinkle twinkle little cat; tell me what you�re at...
MIKE: Getting to you already, Tom?

>##############################################################

CROW: I have a feeling we�re gonna get pounded here.  Get it?  �Pounded�?
MIKE: Punny!

>In respect to essential departmental goals, our fully integrated field 
>program adds >overriding performance constraints to any normative concept 
>of the linguistic/holistic >continuum. Conversely, the speaker- hearer's 
>linguistic intuition is rather different from >a corpus of utterance tokens 
>upon which conformity has been defined by the paired >utterance test.

SERVO: Which has not, apparently, been applied to this.
MIKE: Or any similar text, it would seem.

>In respect to specific goals, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains 
>relatively >inaccessible to ordinary extraction is further compounded when 
>taking into account the >overall negative profitability. From the 
>intercultural viewpoint, this analysis of a >formative as a pair of sets of 
>features necessitates that urgent consideration be applied >to our hedonic 
>Folklife perspective over a given time period. On

MIKE: Viewpoint University, 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM on 1140 KSOO Radio!

>our assumptions, my proposed independent structuralistic concept cannot be 
>defined in >such a way as to

SERVO: ...make meaningless stuff like this make sense somehow.

>impose the evolution of specifications over a given time period. However, 
>the >fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial adds 
>explicit >performance contours to an abstract underlying order.

MIKE: Like the one these messages seem to have.

>Note that further and associated contradictory elements delimits the 
>sophisticated >hardware. Of course, initiation of basic charismatic 
>subculture development effects a >significant implementation of the 
>requirement that branching is not tolerated within the >dominance scope of 
>a complex symbol.

SERVO: Like the artist who is known as Prince again.
CROW: And that�s limited, let me tell you.

>As a result, a descriptively adequate grammar is to be regarded as the 
>overall negative >profitability.

CROW: Oh yeah, right.  Not knowing how to write or speak is a bad thing.

>Analogously, initiation of basic charismatic subculture development does 
>not affect the >structure of any communicatively-programmed computer 
>techniques.

SERVO: Such as writing a SPAM and then running it through a SPAM encoder.

>##############################################################

MIKE: Next!

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Summarizing, 
>then, we assume that a large >proportion of intercultural communicative 
>coordination effects a significant >implementation of an important 
>distinction in language use.

CROW: At least in the socioanthropologic sense...
MIKE: Wow, Crow, where did you get so smart?
CROW: I have a few books in my room.

>By combining adjunctions and certain deformations,

SERVO: Oh yeah, these people know all about deformations.

>initiation of basic charismatic subculture development is rather different 
>from the total >system rationale. On that analysis, a large portion of 
>interface coordination >communication adds explicit performance limits to 
>any discrete configuration mode. >For one thing, the product assurance 
>architecture seems to me to be weakly equivalent >to improved subcultural 
>compatibility-testing.

MIKE:[ B5�s Ivonova] It failed.

>Obviously, a primary interrelationship of system and/or subsystem logistics 
>is, >apparently, determined by a parasitic gap construction.

SERVO: Obviously.

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

CROW: Next!

>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 
>To further describe and >annotate, the descriptive power of the base 
>component delimits an abstract underlying >order.

CROW: Which is something I�m assuming these things have.

>Nevertheless, the speaker- hearer's linguistic intuition recognizes other 
>systems' >importance and the necessity for irrelevant intervening contexts 
>in selectional rules.

SERVO: Rules?  What rules?

>For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to 
>be of any >interest, a large proportion of interface coordination 
>communication adds explicit >performance limits to a stipulation to place 
>the constructions into these various >categories. We can see, in 
>retrospect, the natural general principle that will subsume >this case is 
>holistically compounded, in the context of the ultimate standard that 
> >determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

MIKE: Yes, as naturally accurate as this is.

>In this regard, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively 
>inaccessible to >ordinary extraction mandates staff-meeting-level attention 
>to possible bidirectional >relationship approaches.

CROW: Refreshments must be served.

>In respect to essential departmental goals, a primary interrelationship of 
>system and/or >subsystem logistics appears to correlate rather closely with 
>the traditional practice of >grammarians. Of course, a descriptively 
>adequate grammar seems to me to be weakly >equivalent to a parasitic gap 
>construction. Obviously, the fundamental error of >regarding functional 
>notions as categorial must utilize and be functionally interwoven >with the 
>anticipated epistemological repercussions. It must be emphasized, once 
>again, >that a large proportion of intercultural communicative coordination 
>requires >considerable performance analysis and computer studies to arrive 
>at the total >configurational rationale.

MIKE: Um, ok...

>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

SERVO: Next!
CROW: Sounds like they�re having trouble deciding what to say.

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 
>However, the >characterization of specific criteria is not quite equivalent 
>to any discrete configuration >modality.
MIKE:[as one of the �Goofy Gophurs�] Indubitably.

>It may be, then, that a further and associated contradictory element is 
>rather different >from an abstract underlying order.

CROW: �Associated contradictory element?�  What�s that supposed to mean?
MIKE: Nothing.  Just like the rest of these things.

>We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the product 
>configuration >baseline seems to me to be weakly equivalent to the 
>traditional practice of >grammarians.

MIKE: *When* will they do it?
SERVO: *How* will they do it?
CROW: *Where* will they do it?
SERVO: These answers and more next week on the new Star Trek spinoff: Star 
Trek: the Borg!

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

SERVO:[makes machine gun noises]
MIKE: That gag�s about used up

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@@@@@@@@ In summary, the natural 
>general principle that will subsume this case >presents extremely 
>interesting challenges to the philosophy of commonality and 
> >standardization.

MIKE:[Earth: Final Conflict scientist] As far as we know, this has always 
been the way of the Taelons.

>In respect to essential departmental goals, initiation of critical 
>subsystem development >presents a valuable challenge showing the necessity 
>for the

SERVO: ...use of plain, simple English that everyone can understand.

>preliminary qualification limit. Notice, incidentally, that a constant flow 
>of field- >collected input ordinates does not readily tolerate the 
>evolution of specifications over a >given time period. By combining 
>adjunctions and certain deformations, a large portion >of interface 
>coordination communication requires considerable systems analysis and 
> >trade-off studies to arrive at an important distinction in language use.

CROW: That distinction being, of course, the running of spam through a spam 
encoder program.

>Without going into the technical details, the incorporation of agonistic 
>cultural >constraints necessitates that urgent consideration be applied to 
>the anticipated >epistemological repercussions.

MIKE: That�s not technical?

>In respect to essential departmental goals, a subset of English sentences 
>interesting on >quite independent grounds recognizes the importance of 
>other disciplines, while taking >into account a general convention 
>regarding the forms of the grammar.

MIKE: Hey!  That�s what *this* is!

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@@@@@@@@
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@@@@@@@@@@@@ This suggests that 
>this analysis of a formative as a pair of >sets of features is a notational 
>variant of the overall negative profitability. To approach >true 
>user-friendliness,

SERVO: ...don�t put meaningless science crap at the end of your messages.

>the descriptive power of the base component necessitates that coagulative 
>measures be >applied to an abstract underlying order. For example, the 
>fundamental error of regarding >functional notions as categorial mandates 
>staff-meeting-level attention to irrelevant >intervening contexts in 
>selectional rules.

CROW: Meaning �Introduce your employees to SPAM-based non-science.�

>Interestingly enough, the notion of level of grammaticalness must utilize 
>and be >functionally interwoven with the anticipated epistemological 
>repercussions. However, a >large proportion of intercultural communicative 
>coordination is necessary to impose an >interpretation on the extended 
>c-command discussed in connection with (34). Thus any >exponential Folklife 
>coefficient cannot be defined in such a way as to impose a >descriptive 
>fact.

CROW: Or message, in this case.

>Let us continue to suppose that the characterization of specific criteria 
>effects a >significant implementation of the postulated use of dialog 
>management technology.

SERVO: Also, continue to admit that this means absolutely nothing.

>It should be noted that the independent functional principle can be defined 
>in such a >way as to impose any communicatively-programmed computer 
>techniques.
MIKE: Used primarily in cyberSPAM, of course.

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >@@@@@@@@@@@@

>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&   >&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
>For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to 
>be of any >interest, this selectionally introduced contextual feature is 
>holistically compounded, in >the context of any deep configuration mode.

SERVO: I don�t know what that means, but still I feel the need to say �Yeah, 
right.�

>Presumably, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier adds 
>explicit >performance contours to a general convention regarding the forms 
>of the grammar.

MIKE: Yes, it does.  They teach it in most elementary Language Arts classes.

>We have already seen that most of the methodological work in modern 
>linguistics >maximizes the probability of project success,

CROW: ...which is still very low.

>while minimizing cross-cultural shock elements in the ultimate standard 
>that >determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

SERVO: Eh, pseudoscience is pseudoscience, no matter what language or 
culture it�s in.

>For one thing, a completely-specified evaluation metric is functionally 
>equivalent and >parallel to the subsystem compatibility testing.

MIKE: Care to explain that for us English speakers?

>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&        
> >&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

SERVO: Guess not.

>#################################################################

CROW: They want to pound this one into us.

>In this regard, the descriptive power of the base component is functionally 
>equivalent >to (though formally distinct from) any 
>communicatively-programmed computer  >techniques.

MIKE: Like Unix or Linux or something?

>Analogously, a constant flow of effective communication may remedy and, at 
>the same >time, eliminate the total system rationale.

SERVO: Assuming there was any to begin with.

>Notice, incidentally, that the systematic use of complex symbols is 
>unspecified with >respect to a parasitic gap construction. In respect to 
>specific goals, the notion of level of >grammaticalness cannot be defined 
>in such a way as to impose the profound meaning of >"The Raw and the 
>Cooked".

CROW: And this is definately �the Raw!�

>#################################################################

SERVO: And that�s ten!
CROW: We�re outta here!
MIKE: Wait a minute!  There�s another one scrolling in!
CROW: How can that be?  Pearl said there were only ten!

>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

CROW: And right off they have trouble deciding what to say.

>For example, the independent functional principle is not subject to a 
>descriptive fact.

SERVO: In this case, I would say not.

>It may be, then, that a large proportion of interface coordination 
>communication must >utilize and be functionally interwoven with an abstract 
>underlying order. To provide a >constituent structure for T(Z,K), most of 
>the methodological work in modern linguistics >effects a significant 
>implementation of a general convention regarding the forms of the >grammar.

SERVO: Meaning that this will make no sense at all.

>In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), any associated 
>supporting >element is to be regarded as the traditional practice of 
>grammarians. Further, the earlier >discussion of deviance is further 
>compounded when taking into account the structural >design, based on system 
>engineering concepts.

SERVO: Are they just talking about language here?
MIKE: I think so.

>Of course, relational information must utilize and be functionally 
>interwoven with the >requirement that branching is not tolerated within the 
>dominance scope of a complex >symbol. Of course, a case of 
>semigrammaticalness of a different sort is a notational >variant of Krapp's 
>Last Tape.

CROW: Worm.
SERVO: That about sums it up, there.

>Notice, incidentally, that an important property of these three types of EC 
>adds >overwhelming Folkloristic significance to irrelevant intervening 
>contexts in selectional >rules.

MIKE: Like these messages.

>As a resultant implication, initiation of critical subsystem development 
>raises serious >doubts about the system of base rules exclusive of the 
>lexicon.

SERVO: Again, like these messages.

>Similarly, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent 
>grounds is >unspecified with respect to all deeper structuralistic 
>conceptualization.

CROW: That sums it all up.

>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

SERVO: Is this the end?
MIKE: I think so.  No more seem to be coming in.
SERVO: Good.  Let�s get out of here.
[All leave theater]
[6...5...4...3...2...1...Waiting Room]
[Mike and the Bots around controll panel]

MIKE: So.  You guys wanna try for the science-babble contest again?
CROW: Nah.  Those ones from the Spams took all the fun out of it.
SERVO:  Yeah.  They got us beat by a million miles.
CROW: Let�s just say they won and donated the RAM chips to our general 
reserve fund before Pearl found out.
MIKE: Good idea.  [Pearl�s light flashes, Mike taps]
[Castle Forrester, Pearl and Observer are in view]
PEARL: Effects, Brain Guy?
OBSERVER: I would assertain that they are feeling the same dejectedness that 
they do after most of the experiments.  Nothing they won�t recover from in a 
few days.
PEARL: So, how do you think they got so immune to such high doses of 
meaningless technobable?
OBSERVER: Perhaps all the low doses they�ve been exposed to over the years 
in such things as �Star Trek� and �Sonic the Hedgehog� fanfics have acted as 
a vaccine.
[Cut to SOL Waiting Room]
MIKE: Huh.  Who�d have thought that the works of Bookshire Draftwood and 
Stephen Ratliff would actually be *good* for us?

[Season 9 end credits]

Other Credits:
Earth: Final Conflict copyright RK Productions.
Unix/Linux copyright various persons and companies.
Babylon 5 created by J. Micheal Stracynzky and produced by Warner Brothers.
SPAM copyright Hormel.
Viewpoint University produced and copyright KSOO Radio, Sioux Falls, South 
Dakota.
Mystery Science Theater 3000 copyright Best Brains, Inc. and Sci-Fi Channel. 
  Neroom ne noc neva.  Sci-Fi!
Sciency sounding tidbits copyright whoever wrote them.
MiSTing by Jesse Shearer.  Email contact: ambasosor_lardo@hotmail.com
Works of Bookshire Draftwood and Stephen Ratliff belong to Draftwood and 
Ratliff respectively.

Stringer:
>Obviously, a primary interrelationship of system and/or subsystem logistics 
>is, >apparently, determined by a parasitic gap construction.

****************************** +++++++++++++++++++++++++

Twenty years on, I've come to a place where I'd say the last joke is somewhat in poor taste. At the time I wrote the original piece, the authors mentioned were fairly well recognized in the MST fan community for their works in the Sonic the Hedgehog and Star Trek communities. I won't go so far as to say that they were bad, per se, at what they did, but at the same time, there's also a reason why so much of their work showed up in these things. I can only recall having read one thing by either of them, and it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't especially memorable, either.

As for what's coming, content-wise, there's what I'd call my standard fare, meaning there's one more picture post from my trip out west, as well as some Text Play stuff and a few random posts. There are also several more of these I'd like to get reposted as well. There's episode five of the Digimon series I've been meaning to get up. Part of the delay comes from that it will actually be a second repost, this time focusing more on the history of the piece itself. Alongside it is one where I take a shot at some of my own work alongside an earlier two-chapter piece by the same author as what would be the “main series” later on.

Hopefully, I'll be getting to all of this sooner rather than later, but all this is subject to change according to the situation at hand. Until next time!