I did a retraction once for a neuroscience one where my conclusion was way of base, I had to do it for my lengthy dissertation on Ernest P. Worrell in which the conclusion I made approached the asinine....and now I will do a retraction of statements in regards to this recent piece:
Article in Question: This Week in Satire
For that article, in the style of Mel Allen's "This Week in Baseball" I wrote reviews of recent satire pieces that society had produced over that particular week. I said some nice things and I also talked some mad mad shit at people. The following parties were mentioned:
Nice Things Said About: South Park
Mad Shit Said At: John Oliver, Jamie Oliver, and Cookie Monster
The nice things said about the Park are to be unaffected by this retraction. South Park rules, and everyone knows that.
The mad shit stated about two-thirds (2/3) of the parties in question of which mad shit was said undoubtedly need said mad shit to be amended if not totally stricken from the record.
The parties who will have mad shit which was spoken about them amended and/or retracted are one Cookie Monster and one John Oliver.
Before we continue we must first explain why talkin' mad shit is so serious, and we must also do a quick disambiguation before the article gets under way.
The Talkin' of Mad Shit
|This is Raviolies|
Think of the concept of "Reputation" as a clean white t-shirt. Everyone on earth is wearing this symbolic clean white t-shirt and it represents their reputation as humans. A person who's t-shirt is no longer clean has a bad reputation. So, in this figurative example...all the little petty crimes and annoying things you do manifest themselves as stains on this t-shirt. These t-shirt stains also appear as others talk shit about you.
In the case of talking mad shit at someone...it is the equivalent of taking a full plate of raviolies and whipping them at that person's white t shirt. Oh shit.
It's serious business to whip raviolies at someone's white T-shirt...and that's why talking mad shit at people is not something to do just out of the blue and for no reason. If it is the case that someone talked mad shit about someone yet they were wrong...then that person should retract all and every statement of mad shit.
I re-read that This Week in Satire one, and it doesn't really flow good. I'm talkin' 'bout John Oliver in one paragraph and then Jamie Oliver in the next, and then back to John Oliver. Those two names are quite similar and I didn't even put up photos of either party...it just seems poorly structured and confusing on my part.
To disambiguate the two parties here are each side-by-side in a photograph:
They are similarly named and from the same country...they both have their own hands...but they come from different moms.
C.M. was not the main subject of the article in question, yet I was talkin' some mad smack about him as a short aside. I had read an article recently saying that Cookie doesn't even eat cookies anymore and that he eats only vegetables, and fruits, and nuts, and some berries, and this, and that. After reading that, I felt myself losing respect for Cookie Monster. I was thinking maybe he got like a vegetarian girlfriend and because of her he was eating some bull crap diet to make her happy or something like that. I've seen too many bruthas over the years start eating some bull crap diet because of their dumb girlfriends and I just naturally thought this is what happened to Cookie Monster due to my personal biases.
I was wrong.
Turns out, Cookie Monster has been talking about vegetables and shit since NINETEEN EIGHTY SEVEN (1987). I remember this song too, so it's weird that I forgot that Cookie does indeed eat other stuff at times...
Cookie was even eatin' this stuff in the eighties. I totally forgot about that. I thought he really got like this retarded girlfriend that nagged him into being a vegan or something. I really thought he sold out. But, it seems like Cookie was always down with healthy foods (even cream of wheat, word up) therefore the shit I was talking about this man was not warranted.
I'm sorry Cookie, you're the best.
I love you Cookie Monster.
I was heaping a whole helpin' of raviolies all over John Oliver's shirt the other week. Holy shit, I ran out of raviolies and starting whippin' whole doses of spaghetti sauce all over his damned shirt. Oh, man.
I was all keened over some statements he was making about sugar...and I like sugar...so I was all in a tizzy, I really was. I truly was. I was really in a tizzy over that sugar nonsense.
However, I recently watched two videos of John Oliver collaborating with my boy Cookie Monster,
Boy is my face red. Here I am talking shit about John Oliver and I didn't even know he's down with my boy Cookie. Sorry homie. I didn't know you were chill with the Cookie Monster.
Respect via proxy is an important facet in social behavior. John is down with Cookie...and I'm down with Cookie Monster (in fact when I was a little baby I used to sleep with a plush version of his likeness)...meaning both of us share the trait of being down with Cookie Monster. Due to this downness with Cookie Monster and due to the laws of Respect Via Proxy...I must then, of course, be down with John Oliver.
I don't always know who in hollywood hangs out with who. I simply did not know that John Oliver and Cookie Mosters were homies. I honestly didn't know that and I shouldn't have talked so much shit about John Oliver in retrospect. Anyone who hangs with C.M. has to be an okay guy.
This retraction DOES NOT apply to Jamie Oliver, all negative statements therein made about Jamie Oliver still stand. In fact I would like to apply more negative statements to Jamie Oliver while we're on the topic. I would like to apply four entirely new negative statements to Jamie Oliver.
1. Jamie Oliver is dumb
2. Jamie Oliver is really stupid
3. Jamie Oliver smells and I hate him
4. Jamie Oliver....you are the worst guy, like ever
It was recommended in the End Notes that Jamie Oliver be "Suplexed in Modulo 12" which is not a term used often and I wish to elaborate. Basically, suplexes in various modulations are just how many suplexes occur in a successive pattern, for example the following is Suplexes in Modulo 3:
Suplex in Modulo 3
I was recommending that someone, similar to Chavo Guerrero, suplex Jamie Oliver 12 times successively. I will not retract that statement, because it's the truest thing anyone's ever said.
I love you, Cookie Monster.
(but not more than Ernie and Grover, though)
(but not more than Ernie and Grover, though)