Quote:

Indroduction

She said to write an argumentative essay. My paper on the feminist movement hit a brick wall. I got desperate, this is what resulted.

Why You Shouldn't Read This

Seam Duffy

     There are such a multitude of reasons as to why this paper should never be read by human eyes, that one must wonder why anyone would even need these reasons explained within this paper which should not be read. Under no circumstances should anyone who lays eyes upon this continue any further. The first sign that something is horribly wrong with this paper, and should thus be avoided, would be the fact that the name at the top of the paper was misspelled, and unintentionally so at that. As if that were not enough of a warning, then the very nature of this ridiculous topic for an argumentative essay, with its multiple layers of irony and circular logic should by now at least cause even the hardiest of reader’s head to explode. Other reasons as to why reading this essay is detrimental to the mental health of any sane human being, to be expounded upon later, include, but are by no means limited to, the time that would be wasted in reading it completely, the irritating mistakes in grammar and syntax that will crop up at just the right moment to add yet more irony to the paper, and the lack of meaningful or deep content. Some serious environmental issues may also be raised should this paper be read en masse.
     This essay is obviously a waste of time. Its very creation and intent is intentionally paradoxical in nature, negating its own purpose and need for existence with an absurd series of poorly conceived points. In the end, the reader’s time would have been better spent watching C-Span 2 on cable television. Seriously, there could quite possibly be a very intriguing piece on the issue of domestic pay raises across the lesser bureaucracy of the centralized federal government that you are missing right now, because you’re reading this paper. Go, while you still can! Back already? Well, I almost got you…
     Syntax mix-ups, used in odd ways, understanding is made hard through the use of these, at times to which we all know were chosen ironically. Slowed is the pacing, again point to which likely frustration will be had. Before this all is grammar errors make continuation nearly impossible. punctuation, capticalzation spelling and other things are those which many teechers wood be riping their hare out on then. Nonsesnsical ramblings riddled with errors and some wicked-cool use of slang make this paper one to be avoided at all costs! All costs, it must be avoided at!
     This paper also has an odd property in such parts that makes it not only make use of a voice which could be in some cases be considered by many to be passive, but also a strange trait of suddenly stretching out to provide even less content than would be the standard in the rest of the paper. Run-on sentences are quite possibly on the verge of showing up, while once again nothing more is said, dragging on the paper so as just about anyone who would have suffered through the gags previously provided up to this point in an attempt to deter readers effectively from continuing on in their pursuits, but which have obviously failed, calling into question the very effectiveness of an argument against reading the very argument against reading the argument which is against reading itself, so on and so forth until the cruel cycle is perpetuated, would be quite on the verge of choking the author of this paper, who couldn’t even spell his name correctly. Truly, however, if anyone would have actually suffered through the complete disregard for the basic rules of writing, just to gain no more of an insight into what inspired the use of circular logic in an otherwise mildly humorous and possibly clever argumentative piece, the joke has by now been taken to such an extreme that the effectiveness of the argument itself is called into question.
     So while this paper is riddled with intentional (and unintentional) mistakes, frustrating use of syntax arrangements, long winded pointless rants, and straight out arguments against reading it, such as the fact that it is a waste of time, there is still the possibility that one who truly deserves praise (or morphine) after making it to this point, could still be forging ahead. As such, more arguments must be made.
     If this paper is ever reproduced in more than one document, then the environmental impact of multiple people reading it and killing more trees so as to allow easier access to it as readable material on paper would be absolutely devastating. Even so, the paper this was inked upon shall and must be recycled upon immediate receiving, so as to minimize the effect while it is still in its beginning stages. Always recycle poorly written papers. Never read them. This is a paper that must be recycled, and is poorly written; hence it should not be read.