« SNL Draft - the morning after | Main | In Defense of The Gumby Lounge Singers »

Jason, You Ignorant Slut

This is the response to Jason and Charles' responses to "SNL Draft - the morning after" email. The relevant portions of their responses are quoted within this email.

To my bitches Jason and Charles,

I expected something like this. Anger, vitriol, personal attacks. Such is the lot of the Scientist, bearing the light of truth to the world. Like a missionary bearing an altogether different kind of truth, you run at me with your spears, you tie me to the stake, you set your lions upon me. However, unlike those missionaries, I can use my Science and her collected Truths to build a force-field and deathray, fuck y'all up good, and eat some well-broiled lion meat for lunch.

Yes, I expected a reaction not unlike ignorant primitive natives hooting in fear at a flashlight. Truth is, my sweet bitches. I took a pattern of seemingly random data, data that you (in the mists of your ignorance) could only assemble into order by personal preference, and arranged it according to the hidden but undeniable order that Science, in her sweet benevolence, revealed.

Most of us have hardly given SNL a glance in recent years. The draft was doubtless biased towards the cast members of our youth. I aimed to rectify that, with Science.

Like some ancient cro-mag trying to make sense of a comet, you simply applied your personal experience and called what you saw fire, when in fact it was the coldest of space-ice streaming steam into the void. Your seemingly red-hot Martin Shorts and Chris Elliots are nothing more than that, my sweet bitches: hot air. I would no more assemble them into a cast than shove Science's sweet flashlight of truth up my own rectum.

Speaking of which, Jason said:

Billy Crystal 27.5
Tim Kazurinsky 29
Al Franken 38
Martin Short 21
Kevin Nealon 74.5
Mike Myers 72.5

These are numbers we trust? Kazurinsky trumps Crystal? Franken is
nearly twice the cast member of Short? Nealon is slightly better
than Myers?

I'm afraid, dear Rob, the only bitch here is the one that soaked
that strap-on in liquid crack before she fucked you with it.

Jason, you ignorant slut. So much must be explained to you. Please, I beg of you, stop shoving dirt into your orifices and listen to me.

Science straps on 8" inches of pure fact. Take solace in the knowledge that you're not the first to feel her gentle, truthful caresses, which to your pig-ignorant mind feels like a rough ass-fucking. You'd best bear down like you're taking a shit, brother, because when Science pushes in, it's not stopping until its entire hot load of Truth has been deposited. I assume it will be deposited in your bowels, despite the more obvious utility to your brain.

First, you neglected to account for the margin of error. I elided it from the original discussion, under the assumption that each of you would perform such a simple calculation in your head while reading the document. However, as is now clear, performing simple sums on your fingers is a skill you lack. From this it's clear that simple everyday Science, like the beautiful geometric topology of How To Tie Your Shoes, escapes you.

How do you survive? I watch you all with fascination, as you run about your daily lives as beheaded chickens jog about the barnyard. I don't quite know how you do it, but I can say this: I am going to try to be off the roads when I know you are driving.

My apologies, I did not intend a diversion comprised of an honest, frank and unemotional assessment of your qualities. I simply meant to state that, within the margin of error, yes, TK > BC.

And please take note: although this is the revealed Truth today, as we are able to refine both our data and our formula, this revealed Truth may itself be revealed as falsehood. This, of course, is the way of Science. I don't expect you to understand it, my sweet but ignorant bitches, and I expect you will now attack me, saying that I am using Science to bulwark any argument as I see fit. However, it remains Truth, too, that you're ignorant pig-fuckers, unworthy of speaking her name.

It's hardly worth my time explaining it in a way that you can understand. I would draw you a chart, but as you have no paper or pencils in this dump you call your home, and as I can only draw so many charts and diagrams with my finger in the dirt floors you use for both writing and excreting on, I hardly expect any Truth to sink into your ignorance-hardened melons.

Charles said:

You can't just take years of service without any modifiers... Also,
impressions are easier than original characters to create, thus
skewing the rankings in favor of the impersonators (Hammond,
Carver, Hartman, et al.)...And no value for "Best Of" DVDs?
Having a DVD should garner points, and more points the better
it sells.

Charles: I fully agree that the formula could use some refinement. Indeed, I was hoping to spark a discussion on that very topic, rather than simply hold myself up for public ridicule. To be clear, I was hoping for both, not just the one. Certainly, I accept the ridicule as any who attempts to bring The Way to a group of mindlessly ignorant pig-fuckers as yourselves.

Regardless, you seem to be somewhat less both pig-ignorant and pig-fucking than your fellows (who have responded with either vitriol or deaf-and-dumb silence), so let us now speak of the maths. You do know the maths, don't you?

Using your concepts combined with my own, I propose the following formula:

score = (A x m1) + (B x m2) + (C x m3) + (D x m4) + (E x m5) + (F x m6)


A = number of seasons in the cast
B = number of guest appearances
C = number of characters performed
D = number of impressions performed
E = number of SNL DVDs released under cast member's name
F = number of repeating skits cast member was a player in

and where the other factors, Scientifically known as the "mustard factorials," are:

m1 = 2.5
m2 = 3.5
m3 = 1
m4 = 1.25
m5 = 4
m6 = 2

So that, a cast member's DVD release is worth the most of all; a guest appearance, which must mean someone likes you, is worth nearly as much; and years of service count less, as do repeating skits. Appearing in skits or as repeating characters is worth something, too, so those on the cast who performed less would receive fewer points overall. Also, there are other potential variables to consider: sales figures (total units sold) for said DVDs, and number of awards won as staff members.

If you have somehow managed to read this far without hurting yourself in the brain, my bitches, I hereby open the floor -- for debate only, please, Jason, stop crapping in the corner -- to discussion on this valuable topic.

I am, sincerely, yours in Science.


My name is Tomas!

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)