TITLE:1500 SO-WHAT? FILLERS FOR EVERY TASTE
PALETTE:0223 088a 0978 08ba

3                               A PACK OF FILLERS

  2                                  By Macno


I  can't  stand  the  idea  that  other mags have more fillers and more So-What?
articles than Scenarium.
What the hell, if there must be competition, it has to be on everything!
That's  why I decided to write various  21500 bytes - So-What? - Scene Journalist
articles to prove that Scenarium is a scene mag.

For  a  mere  code restriction, though, I can't put more than 99 articles in the
menu  and therefore I have decided to group all these lovely So-What?  pieces in
an  unique 2 PACK1.
This solution also saves me from an attack of 2"Gosh!  That article is too short"
2syndrome1, of which I am heavily affected.

Here you are then, a juicy, boring 2pack of So-What? pieces1 about the scene.


3GAMERS IN THE SCENE
One  of  the  dogmas more or less accepted in contemporary scene is that playing
games  is LAME.  A gamer is supposed to be an untalented dude who is not able to
fulfil  nobler  activities with his computers, things like coding, making music,
swapping, writing, collecting sceners photos.
In  other  words a gamer is a lamer and therefore he deserves the whole range of
insults and abuses that every good lamer has to receive.
We  have  commissionated  a scene opinion pool to2 MediaScene1, the most important
company for similar services.  The results are somehow unexpected:
280% 1 of  the sceners below 18 years consider lame to play games, this percentage
falls  to 2 38% 1 to  sceners  between  18  and  25 years and drops to2 0%1 to older
sceners.
Somehow  it  seems  that  juvenile  sceners consider more lame to play games, an
activity which was supposed to be more popular in younger generations.
Why?  We have asked to a famous scenologist to enlighten us, he replied:
2"There are two opposite scene-psycological tendencies behind these results.  The
2first  one  is  the  desire  of growing, of getting adult, typical of teenagers.
2This  tendency  is  reflected in the refusal of activities considered infantile,
2like  playing.  The second is the inborn infantility of scene members.  The same
2fact  that they belong to the scene indicates that they have a ludic tendency, a
2well  developed  juvenile soul.  This second factor, present in all the sceners,
2whatever  their  age, tends to reveal itself when the scener grows and gradually
2removes  from his unconscious the desire of being adult.  In other words I would
2have been surprised of different results.  Thanks for the attention".
This  is  the explanation of our scenologist, we have been satisfied by it, even
if  we  haven't understood it that well, and we are pretty sure you are too.  We
have  also  asked  to  our  kind  scientist if the same Scenology was somehow an
attempt of appearing more mature and therefore if it could be the consequence of
the growing desire of young sceners.
2"Surely not"1, he replied embarassed.


3YOUR NAME APPEARS IN SCENARIUM?
Well, there is not much to be proud of.
I am well aware that the number of sceners mentioned in this mag is big.  I know
also  that  many (well, almost) sceners are happy to appear in these pages, even
if they are verbally slaughtered.
Besides  all  the considerations about the disquieting masochist tendency that a
similar  will  of  appearing  here  may  represent, I would like to repeat that:
2There is nothing to be proud of.
You are surely not the only one, just check the 2Sceners Analytical Index1 to find
yourself in the company of the 31501 sceners mentioned in this submag.
If  I report what you have written in an article, if I develop and study a scene
concept  introduced by you, if I quote a nice spandimerda statement of yours, 2do
2not think to be THAT important!
I mean, what's the honour of appearing in a mag where 2everybody1 appears?
Certain  editors write on their mags that they have received a wide feedback for
an  article  they have written.
Wide feedback?!?
Besides  the  comments of their own contacts, which are obvious, they may happen
to refer to a comment appeared on Scenarium, of whatever kind.
Do you call this "feedback"???
Everything  appears  here,  there  is  nothing  unique  or  particular  in that,
2Scenarium is a trashcan, it needs to be filled with whatever kind of garbage.
If   you   consider   this  article  a  massive  example  of  spandimerding  and
self-spandimewrding  you  are  right,  it's  also  a new entrance in the pack of
fillers and an advice to more or less important sceners.
2Don't  feel  that important if I publish here the number of hairs you have.
I do the same with everybody:
2Chaos      1 -         108.843 hairs;
2Moby       1 - 123.221.442.224 hairs;
2E-Noz      1 -             175 hairs;
2Wolfman    1 -         100.000 hairs;
2Cesium     1 -          99.999 hairs;
2Uyanik     1 -         124.947 hairs.... 2(Continues in Grapevine)


3QUARTEX RULES!
Who  invented this slogan?  Was his intuition original or he copied it from some
other  source?  Whatever the answer to this 2Big Question1, who has conceived this
slogan  is  probably  the  person  who has most influenced the scene culture and
language.
This  slogan  has  entered in the vocabulary of every scener, it has printed the
name of 2Quartex1 in scene's history it has even invaded other scenes.
We have asked to our readers if they have ever used a "***** rules" slogan.
2The 100% of them has confessed they have.
We  have  asked  to  2Peto1, the famous philologist, what's so interesting in this
slogan.  He explained:  2"I don't know"1.
We  have checked all the charts of the best slogan and we have always seen it at
the top.
"Quartex  rules" is the  most  successful  slogan  ever, if you have a different
opinion write a reply to this article.


3RACISM IN THE SCENE!
Yes,  it  was a long time I wanted to express my very own inborn and genetically
heredited  opinion about racism in the scene.  That's not a good reason to write
it here, anyway, since it's more or less similar to your own one, averagely, and
it wouldn't add anything new to what you know and think about racism.
I  would  also point out that I am somehow annoyed of reading too often the word
"fascism"  where it should be written "nazism", but I would pass as a fascist if
I wrote that.
I could also explain that 2scene itself is basically a racist community1, since it
tends  to  discriminate  between  cool  guys  and  lamers, anonymous sceners and
V.I.S.,  coders  and swappers, but maybe the concept would be too unbearable for
the good unaware scener who fights for friendship and justice.
I  should even add my opinion about the delicate matter of racist AGA owners and
viceversa, a problem introduced by someone surely gifted of vivid imagination.
I  feel  like  I  could  comment  the racism of some sceners against racism, but
that's a dangerous and intricate topic which could be easily misunderstood.
I  could  finally  make a huge sum-up commenting with sarcastic words the mental
poorness of racists and neonazists, but it would be too easy.
I  should  report  a  final  and  original truth, things like "all men are equal
whatever  the  skin  colour",  but, what the hell, how many have already written
that?
That's  why I want to say that this article is finished, that you haven't gained
anything  from  its  reading  and  that  it's  very  likely that you won't learn
anything new from any other article about racism in the scene.


3FILLOPHOBIA
A dangerous  brand new disease is rapidly spreading among mag editors.  It's the
fear  that  readers and reviewers might think that your articles are fillers and
the traumatic consequential acts this phobia brings.
The  2Fillophobia1  is everywhere, it reflects the main editor's weakness and lack
of  self  confidence, it shows clearly how the plagued individual depends on the
opinion of others.
2You can easily spot an affected subject when he starts to write that his article
2is  a filler1, that he is filling some more lines in his mag, that he makes packs
of fillers and so on.
He tries to make some cheap self-irony somehow to defend himself from the accuse
of  filling  an article, but the real meaning of similar statements stays in the
deep  frustration  of  the writer, who, even if aware of filling, is not able to
stop himself from doing it without feeling guilty.
Close  relatives  of the Fillophobia are the 2So-What?Phobia1, the 21500bytesPhobia
and  all  the similar mental disturbs that affect the writers of particular kind
of low-budget articles.
Recent  paleolitic  studies  have  pointed  out that 2the main cause of all these
2illnesses  is  the  criminalization  of certain kinds of articles1.  Somebody has
started to make irony of Fillers, So-What?  articles, 1500s, in few months these
articles  became  somehow forbidden, it wasn't possible to publish them in a mag
without  being  mentioned in Scenarium, it became immoral and absurd to continue
to write them.
But 2editors tendencies are slower than fashion1, they continued to write fillers,
So-What?,  1500  and  similar  criminalized pieces (or crap?) and therefore they
collapsed   in   the  unavoidable  disease,  which  brought  them  to  infantile
explanations of the filling opera they were doing.
Some  researchers  have  foreseen  the development of a 2JournalistOphobia1 in few
months,  when  nobody  will stand anymore journalist articles.
Some known subjects at high risk have been already alerted.


3WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SCENARIUM
Thanks  to  my  precious Crystal Ball Made in Singapore I can foresee the future
and  write  what  commenters  and readers are going to write about this issue of
Scenarium.
Revolution  is  always  calling, you can read here everything and the comment of
everything.
People like 2El Loco1, who has to fill mags as everyone else, are going to say:
1) "Always  inventing  new  words?   We are damnly bored of all your attempts to
   create  a  new  scene  vocabulary, why don't you use plain English instead of
   your ridiculous scenglish?";
2) "Here  you  are,  you  have infected the scene with a new lot of diseases and
   disturbs.  Do you like so much to play the plague-spreader?";
3) "Your sense of  humour  is losing originality eh?  Always the same jokes, the
   old  style,  the  usual gags.  I have read three times the same kind of joke,
   about the same person, in three different parts of the mag!";
4) "You must have some psicological problems";
5) "Your  spandimerda  awards  aren't funny,  scenology is boring, the only good
   thing there are the Lunatic Balls";
6) "Don't you feel like the whole Scenarium is tremendously childish and somehow
   annoying and irritating? I have this impression sometimes";
7) "Scenarium  is not made for readers, is made for you and your friends.   It's
   full of internal jokes, fake spandimerda attacks to persons you know well, it
   relates  to  non-public  topics.  Most of its parts are really boring for the
   normal reader";
8) "You  know,  there's  nothing  bad  in this Scenarium,  it's always funny and
   entertaining,  but, somehow, I feel that something doesn't work, some kind of
   old  feeling  is  lost, it's like you have changed something or something has
   changed in you".
9) "Why  have  you  foreseen  how  I  am  commenting  Scenarium?  Do you fear my
   opinion?  Why do you always write that your mag is crap?  Do you want to hear
   people telling the contrary?";
I am looking forward to hear other comments and remarks about this Scenarium, of
the ones written here I am already aware.