There will no doubt be a solid core of readers out there who’ll believe that I picked the Toolache Wallaby (Macropus greyi) because of its name. Oh, yes. Very droll. Lot’s of jokes about spanking the wallaby (as it were) and on and on and on. I have bad news, you drooling pack of drongos. You’re bloody well wrong! I chose to review it because. . . hey, I don’t have to explain myself to you. The Lord Redeemer on a Zimmer frame! For a start, it’s pronounced “toe-LAY-chee,” not “tool-ache.” The thought of a mob of wallabies sitting in a circle under a tree. . . mutter, mutter, mutter. It’s true that nothing is known about the reproductive biology of these sensitive marsupials (except by me, woo woo!) but that’s no reason to go casting asparagus.
The point to be made here is, somewhat possibly, serious and important. Here’s a creature that had all the attributes of a successful Australian macropod. It had few natural predators apart from Wedge-tailed Eagles, which would take the young wallabies, hang them upside down on a branch, and use their rapier beaks to disembowel the wee creatures, so that their glistening entrails hung in steaming festoons from the trees, like horror streamers in a nightmare Mardi Gras parade of blood, intestines and semi-digested milk and grass . . . I must unsubscribe from the DANTE-L list-server.
Foxes, too, were known to have a crack at the Toolache population. But it would take more than this scourge of fluffy-tailed ferals to ensure that the citizens of Planet Earth would be deprived forever of the sight of such elegantly masked wallabies erratically staggering across the South Australian landscape. (The Toolaches were the Yellow Beards of the wallaby world — stagger, stagger, crawl, stagger, crawl, roll, roll, stagger — adroitly changing the length and direction of their rapid stride to confuse and outpace predators. Damn it! Now I’ve taken to adding facts!)
No, there was only one creature capable of this level of rampant and meaningless destruction. “Run, Bambi! MAN has come to the [tussocky grasslands at the edge of the South Australian heath]!”
And why, ask those among you who are still displaying more vestiges of consciousness than a Short-beaked Echidna that played chicken with a fast-moving eighteen-wheel truck, did man wipe out the Toolache Wallaby? Because they were there! They were fast, and difficult to catch or shoot or run down with packs of mangy, parasitically-endowed mongrel dogs. Ergo there was a challenge in catching or shooting them, or running them down with packs of mangy, parasitically-endowed mongrel dogs. Ergo they were all caught or shot or run down et cetera, and by 1924 they were no more. (OK, there was a sighting as recently as 1972, but given that it was from a so-called “reliable naturalist” I think we should treat it with the contempt it deserves.)
So now, when you wander under the whispering She-oaks at the edges of the southeastern South Australia heath lands, will you see graceful gangs of Toolache Wallabies lounging languidly in the shade? Will you shit! To the Toolache Wallaby: a solid egg, a nought, a love score. Not only were you beautiful by flickering candlelight, but your name will amuse the fart-laughers to eternity. And early nineteenth-century rural settlers in South Australia? A full-blown 11 for your ignorance and for eternally depriving us of the last chance to see. (And touch! Woo woo!)
Posted by at June 1, 2003 12:01 AM | TrackBackDouglas Adams references aren't fair. They engender unwarranted feelings of empathy. Pavlov did an experiment.
Oh, and if this post ends up being first, the guy with the primogeniture complex can still claim supremacy. I don't care.
Posted by: Rose on June 1, 2003 12:56 AM"...because of it’s name." Argh! Aussie boy, you know I love you, but my love for you is nearly matched by my hatred of unnecessary apostrophes. Lawd, why must people fail to spellcheck?
First is the worst, second is the best. Third is the one... the one with the... um... Kevlar vest.
Posted by: The Valrus on June 1, 2003 11:03 AMI refuse to read this article, because it is not about software.
Off topic! Minus two points!
Posted by: fuddes on June 1, 2003 12:35 PMYeah, this Australia junk has about as much appeal these days as that Crocodile Dundee guy does. Combine that with a forced, trying-too-hard writing style and it makes for a very unfunny entry.
First post, first post! She said it was mine! I'm the weirdo, she gave it to me! Yea! Hooray!
Posted by: Leibnitz, N. on June 1, 2003 09:11 PMBeing a day older, and wiser, all I have to say is that what I might have thought to be foolish in my younger years was, in fact, foolish.
While not without charm, these "dead animals that nobody cares about" posts don't exactly speak to your target demographic (which I'm assuming includes people who are not just alive but also possess cognitive thought).
Posted by: June 2 on June 2, 2003 03:33 AMI'm sorry, June. If I'd know you were going to be reading I wouldn't have bothered trying too hard. I wouldn't have bothered trying at all.
I do wish you'd applied a bit of that cognitive thought and wisdom of which you are so obviously and arrogantly proud. I write Australian because I am Australian, me old cobber, mate, china (etc. etc. etc.). But in the end that's not really the point. The Toolache Wallaby could have been the Great Auk, the Passenger Pigeon, the Dodo, or any of the hundreds of beautiful animals and plants that we humans have removed from the face of the planet and will never see again.
If my "target demographic" (newspeak lives, Mrs June Orwell) disapproves of this sentiment, then I'll aim at another target, and happily.
Normally, I would have tried to reply to you with a light and humorous touch, but you have taken this so damned seriously -- come on, this is a place for fun and non-conformity! -- that you've sucked the joy right out of my night.
Tomorrow I'll come back laughing. Tonight I'll shed a tear for the arseholes who don't know better.
Sleep well, everyone ...
Posted by: aussie boy on June 2, 2003 04:01 AMOkay, I didn't call anybody a weirdo.
Although, I think if I were planning on it, I might aim for the people who take the time to post comments here to let everyone know there's nothing at the site worth posting comments about. This is like an attempt to let someone know you have a sense of humor by saying, "I have a sense of humor!" right before you elucidate why you don't.
And you don't posses "cognitive thought." You might posses "cognitive thinking skills," but the other is just linguistically awkward. If you're going to ridicule someone, try not to one-up them first. Bad form. I've only been reading this site for a few weeks, but I find this comment-phenomenon odd. Is there some obscure literary reference I'm missing here?
As a matter of fact, Rose, if you take every third word from all of the comments posted to PvT and string them together, you get ULYSSES.
Oddly enough, if you take every second word and do the same, you get Ellis Wiener's noveilzation of the HOWARD THE DUCK film. Who knew?
Posted by: J. Joyce on June 2, 2003 06:44 AMGee, Mr. Joyce, I don't think I'd call either _Ulysses_ or the Kabbalah obscure, myself, but then again, you're the quintessentially modern author. I'm sure if you decide "obscure" means "immediately capable of being referenced by middle-school students," then I'm sure the new definition will catch on quickly. Heap of broken images, & all that.
And the term "cognitive thoughts" is repetitive, now that I think about it. There are no such things as "visceral thoughts." Thoughts are by definition cognitive. So the whole thing was both inappropriate and awkward.
This is a fun site! I'm putting it on my favorites.
Posted by: Rose on June 2, 2003 07:47 AMI think you are giving middle school students entirely too much credit.
That said, a thousand pardons for my rash assumption that when you asked a question, you intended for any person other than yourself to venture an answer. There is truly nothing more enjoyable than having comments on a humourous website parsed within an inch of their lives. Reminds me of why I never went on to get that PhD, and as such have continued to be a useful member of society.
Well, a useful member, anyway.
Posted by: T. Pynchon on June 2, 2003 08:36 AM"Lot’s of jokes about spanking the wallaby (as it were) and on and on and on." You know, I came back here today and said to myself, "Oh, how nice of aussie boy to fix that apostrophe which had been so perturbing me." But after seeing that it was merely displaced to an even more inappropriate location, I'm beginning to suspect a sinister plot.
I rather liked the actual content, though. Aussie boy's posts are like a tasty side dish to the banquet of disdain that we are usually blessed to feast upon here. And come on, CARS for example doesn't post anything on the weekend.
I would have made more of an effort to inject this post with some frivolity, but it's early in the morning, and I am weak and frail.
Posted by: on June 2, 2003 08:38 AMUm, that last post was by The Valrus, me, not anyone else. I am stupid.
Posted by: The Valrus on June 2, 2003 08:40 AMNot being Australian (you know, weird), I have never heard the phrase "spanking the wallaby." Can this phrase be translated to the american equivalent of "spanking the monkey"? Are these toolache wallabies extinct because they were spanked to death by poachers (presumably left handed idiots, if you know what I mean)? If there are no more toolache wallaby left to spank, what do they spank in Australia these days, naked wildebeests?
Posted by: Jack Offalot on June 2, 2003 10:10 AMRose, harsh rose,
single on a stem --
they said, 'You have a blue guitar,
you do not play things as they are.'
And we are here as on a darkling plain,
spanking the monkey and the wallaby.
I think we are in rats' alley
where the dead men lost their bones.
They fuck you up, your mom and dad,
they may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
and add some extra just for you.
How can one fail to be intense
when one's penis is so immense?
Weaponed and accoutred well
from the arsenals of hell.
The time is neither wrong nor right,
I have been one acquainted with the night.
And what rough beast,
its hour come round at last,
is slouching toward Bethlehem to be born?
You! hypocrite lecteur!
— mon semblable — mon frère!
Let insanity still have charge of sanity!
I'm trying to come to the point.
I refuse to give up my obsession.
Much madness is divinest sense
to a discerning eye.
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing
than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance.
Yeah, baby, that Night Train's a mean wine.
Posted by: naomi on June 2, 2003 11:29 AMAs a hint to the characteristics of the target demographic of this site, when I first read "Wedge-tailed Eagle" I parsed it as "Wedgie-tailed Eagle". (Would that be an ordinary wedgie, or an Atomic Wedgie where its underwear is pulled all the way up over its head?)
My my naomi, I have know idea what you just said, but you take my breath away!
Posted by: a heavy breather. on June 2, 2003 11:43 AMI find it interesting that Macropods are both those various hopping things in the nether regions of the Earth and "Any one of a group of maioid crabs remarkable for the length of their legs".
I find it interesting the chunky peanut butter rubbed on an ourang-outang will result in a solar eclipse. Prove me wrong.
Fluff T. Bunnie, Esq.
I have never had such a fantastic melange of modernist references conglomerated in my honor. I am fairly touched. And done in my honor by another girl, no less. Sexy.
I can't help it that my name is Rose, though. I was not consulted when they made "Titanic," incredible to believe as that may seem.
And I think it's bizarre when people post comments to a humor website which simultaneously attempt to both ridicule and outdo the joke of the original article.
I had to read _Dubliners_ in the 8th grade, which is when I first heard of _Ulysses_.
I don't have a PhD. At least not one in grammar
I didn't mention rabbits once, either. I don't think it's fair of you to go dragging them into this. And I would be "*FLUFFI* T. Bunnie," anyway
... What was this about, again? Some kind of wallaby?
Posted by: Rose on June 2, 2003 12:48 PMA "Rose" by any other name is...well...just damn confusing.
Maybe the extinct toolache wallaby and soon to be extinct fluffy bunnies should get together for a BBQ. How much fun would that be?
Posted by: on June 2, 2003 01:06 PMMy. God. Did. No. One. Notice;
THE TINY CLAY WALLABY?
In. The. Screen. Shot?
Posted by: Jan on June 2, 2003 01:24 PMMethinks Rose has ingested too much organic fertilizer.
Fluff T. Bunnie, Esq.
Good morrow, June. I am back, and now I too am another day wiser (for which read "not much"). But I do regret my disrespectful outburst of last evening, especially now that you seem to have found (or mayhaps regained) your sense of humour.
Therefore, I bend before you, proffering my bottom for a damned good spanking.
Belvedere, bring the paddles! No, the ones with the nails in them, you penguin-suited poltroon! I have gone to far and must pay the price -- a perforated gluteus is just the thing!
Posted by: aussie boy on June 2, 2003 06:18 PMMr. Boy, you are too generous. She's still an arrogant would-be princess who would dictate other's behavior on a site she clearly barely understands:
'And I think it?s bizarre when people post comments to a humor website which simultaneously attempt to both ridicule and outdo the joke of the original article. "
So, you don't get the joke, do you, Rose? To some of us here, that's part of the joke, that the obvious humor simply shimmies away from the obviously obtuse. It's endlessly frustrating, but is also a stout kick-in-the-butt to those of us who deal with stupid people everyday. 'Is it just that I'm intolerant of their perspective?', we ask while dealing with morons?
Nah, invariably they're just a bunch of idiots.
Posted by: Leibnitz, N. on June 2, 2003 07:38 PMLeibnitz, you are as staunch in your support as you are fair but cruel in your critique. If I weren't such a straighty one-eighty I'd want to have your children/pups/leather-skinned alien progeny.
PerversionTracker brings out the very best and the very worst in us all. And thank the gods for that!
Posted by: aussie boy on June 2, 2003 08:49 PMQuick Three-Point Quiz:
1. Is modernism dead, or just napping?
2. Is it right to force children to read James Joyce?
3. Which PvT reader is most likely to win a no-hands pudding-eating contest?
Modernism isn't dead, but this parrot is.
It's f*cking snuffed it! (Monty Python, where are you when we need you ... *Sigh!*)
PS: I'm up for a hands-free pigfest! I won one once at university (though I later vomited in the molasses-eating round).
Posted by: aussie boy on June 3, 2003 08:46 PMyou all suck
Posted by: wyatt drift on September 16, 2003 12:47 PM