LADIES AND GENTLEME…

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
START YOUR BROWSERS!!!
Net: Hear ye, hear ye and all that jazz. Shaddap, siddown and lissenup.
After much surfing and clicking and so on, we have determined a winner in our First Annual and Unlikely To Be Repeated Internetastrophe Contest.
The competition, needless to say, was fierce. We filtered through more than 300 entries (as far as you know) and whittled them down using a not terribly scientific “level of anti-suck” scoring system.
Many entries were rejected for their overt commercial leanings. DogDoo.com, while a fine site certainly worthy of repeated visits, is in place to make money. Other entries were rejected because they lacked a focus for their lunacy; Stileproject.com was jam-packed with mostly useless information and links, but we found ourselves wondering what the meaning of it all was. Yet more sites were rejected because they were similar to so many others: Friendbear.com, Joecartoon.com and Doodie.com each possess much silliness, but they are not terribly unique.
Which brings us to our finalists, in no particular order (or odor — whatever the case may be):
1) Timecube.com: Mr. Gene Ray contends we are all stupid because we “do not know that (our) top, bottom, front, back, left and right sides are created at the same time.” We “educated stupid humans” are stupid and evil, yet do not know we are stupid and evil. So there.
2) Sexualpositionsfree.com: A close runner-up. Little wooden dolls demonstrating a bevy of sexual positions, such as the Winged Eros and the Kneeling Pretzel. The perfect site for the adventurous at heart … just don’t write to us if/when you snap something off.
3) Furnitureporn.com: A very popular entry, so much so that if this were a winner, there wouldn’t be enough pizza to go around. Lots of hot, steamy action with patio furniture, office furniture and even some overstuffed recliners. Naughty but nice.
4) Bertisevil.com: The tall half of the indomitable Sesame Street comedy team has a dark side. Beware the furrowed fuzzy brow.
Ahh … ’twas a wild ride. But after much consideration (sort of) and in-house bickering (not really), we are pleased to stand next to some no-brain model in a Versace gown, while holding a gilded envelope in hand and saying …
AND THE WINNER IS
WWW.CAT-SCAN.COM!!!
“This site contains filthy language and images of squished pussy.” What more do you need to know? We recommend reading the “See What People Are Saying” section after viewing some of the entries. For our own part, we were pleased to have not seen any disclaimers indicating “No animals were harmed in the development of this site,” because we sincerely hope that was the case. Cats suck.
The winning entrant, as we’ve mentioned all along, will receive a gift certificate for five free pizzas at a local establishment. In this case, that would be one Alex Anderson. Send us an e-mail, punk, so’s we can get on with our life.
Spanks again for all your entries. And don’t bother complaining that you didn’t win; we’re not listening.
SOCK BOY STRIKES BACK
From Mr. Sensitivity: In response to Sorry, What Was Your Name Again‘s remark about guys who wear white socks with dress clothes being “poor and clueless.” I am probably your culprit. Net: Shame upon thee, heathen! How dare ye! Two weeks in the men’s accessories department at Dayton’s for you! Yes, I, the guy on the bus and around campus wearing uppity dress clothes, dress shoes and WHITE SOCKS. Deal with it, sister. I work 16 hours a day, and I’m developing my second “.com” business, so I am neither “poor” nor “clueless.” Net: Possessing questionable social skills, yes. Poor and clueless, no. And I’m all for the white-socks look. Its tough to “fashionably” satisfy venture capitalists and picky, catty college fashion queens at the same time. Most guys I see, even the cute ones, don’t even bother to comb their hair before class, and I’m clueless because of my socks? Net: No, you’re clueless because of the suit you were wearing with them. The problem is those weak, black, stinky dress socks offer no cushioning for those hard, nasty dress shoes, resulting in big-ass blisters. Net: Boo-frickin’-hoo. “Pains to be beautiful,” Mama Net always said. But you probably don’t get blisters from your hemp shoes made by starving immigrants or friends of Kathie Lee Gifford. What is with would-be fashion-plate chicks being so damn critical of male attire? Net: Who you callin’ a chick? Guess it’s black socks and blisters from now on….
DEMOCRACY AT PLAY
From Mr. B.D.: Lemme get this straight. If we vote for someone for the illustrious, exalted position of MSA president, chances are they will disband the organization, anyway. Net: Hip. Hip. Hooray. Yawn. So why exactly do we care? Let’s get our point across by doing what faithful Americans have been doing for years … simply sit at home and not vote. It’ll be great! We’ll all sit around and watch television, drink, date Farmhouse chicks, pay more tuition or whatever strikes your fancy. Net: It’s the “striking the fancy” part that has us intrigued. Just don’t go anywhere near the voting sites! Oh, and if you are afraid of some noninformed, non-Network reader spoiling our fun by casting the one vote it takes for someone to win, it won’t happen, because they’re probably too busy doing their homework, studying or something silly like that.
Net: Listen, people. If you really want to vote for someone who will keep hope alive, shine a thousand points of light and bring change for change’s sake, you need look no further than Yours Truly. If you elect us, we will serve, and we will serve nobly.
Will we work to reduce tuition? No way. But will we say we’re trying? Not a chance. Will we work with the Board of Regents to advance the students’ agenda? Fuhgeddaboudit. Will we ask the regents to pay us off to keep quiet? You bet your asses we will. Will we embezzle funds? Absolutely. But will we lie about it? Absolutely not.
This is the sort of common-sense, in-your-face leadership this University needs. Cast a vote that makes you and your pet fish proud.
Vote NET 2000 and smile.