TITLE:THE SCENOLOGY DOSSIER ABOUT THE ART OF GAWPING by ROKDAZONE PALETTE:0223 099b 0cc9 08ba 3 GAWPING - The art of informing the sheeps 2 By RokDaZone of Infect The banal matter of scenish media communication - the diskmag that is - has often the disadvantage of trying to give information to unassure sceners, who often feel pressurised, as the level of speech never reach their own horizonts. Many diskmag makers therefore tried to bring their level of speech down to an extend that reaches the intellectual heights of a scener: They are written like swapletters. Unfortunately this lead the scener to confusing diskmags with swappletters as can be seen in certain "Reader's letters"-sections. Some maineditors tried to near even more the level of the sceners by having their average articles as long as swappletters, but the stated positive effect is doubtful to most of the Scenologists - and not only Socio-Scenologists. The question, interesting to me now was: What WOULD be the most efficient way of bringing information to the sceners? The 3MARVELLOUS(!) LUNATICS BALL-Socio-Scenology-And-Other-Unneccessarities- 3Commitee 1shared my impact of importance of this basic question and exclusivly opened a new room (formerly used as latrine) for studies in direction of an answer. Some volunteering sceners where brought forth under heavy resistance which made it neccessary to chain them. Then I let them listen to various works from writers from the scene and various others, e.g. 3Karl Marx 1and 3Selma Lagerloff1. After having in that position for three days, it turned out that they remembered almost nothing from Karl Marx "Capital" - which got read to them twice (the readers had to be removed thrice due to psychological disturbances - a field which could be interesting for further studies). From diskmag articles, they mostly remembered the titles, the writers names and punctuation marks. Interesting, however: Each scener was able to give the main plot of Nils Holgersson ("Ehrm, there was a boy riding on a duck for being a real asshole, but in da end he was no asshole anymore and so he returned home without da duck or goose or such stuff.")! After further weeks of analysing the results, I came to the marvellous(!) result that the scener had understood the fairytale best and that fairytales therefore are the best way to bring information to the masses of sceners! 3GAWP 1(Giant Attempts Will Pfail) - the final answer to the original question was found. After having the name, I still used some further weeks to work out a concept for 3GAWPING PRESS1, which now will be described: 21. Axiom: 1The scener doesn't want information only! 3Consequence: 1Information has to be combined with entertainment. 22. Axiom: 1The scener is able to keep narration (fairytales) in his little mind, best! 3Consequence: 1The entertainment effect besides the information has to be given in a narratitive style. 23. Axiom: 1Fairytales ain't always true! 3Consequence: 1The narratitive part may give impressions of impossibility to a reasonable mind (ipso facto not for the scener). Fairytales may be told, yet an informational part has to be inserted. 24. Axiom: 1Fairytales are short and basically restricted - sceners have a short raged thinking and are absolutely restricted. 3Consequence: 1Every attempt to boast ones own position be writing mega-long articles appears to be an intellectual own-goal, 3as the average scener wants to be enter- 3 tained and not to take part in an intellectual 3 obstaclerace. 25. Axiom: 1The form kneels before the content, not vice versa! 3Consequence: 1It is absolutely unneccessary to have discussion wether to use terms like "cewl", "C U" and so on. If the way a text is presented demands a certain kind of tone, then it has to be provided by that particular tone. 3A mag can't be held in one single 3 type of tone, if each individual article has to 3 reflect a different sort of topic and point of view. Write it formal or informal, Scenglish or Old English - just after what the narratitive part you write might demand! All this (giving information in a narratitive short and basical text which lays between the levels of chaos and reality) makes the writer the 3GAWPER 1and the readers the 3GAWPED 1(GAWP [at], BrEngl. = to look at something foolish, esp. with the mouth open). I have done a test series to put my own conclusions to question - and the respond was overwhelmingly on my side. The test series is called 3THE 3MARVELLOUS(!) LUNATICS BALL 1and appears to be sub-section of multiple mags by now although it originates from 3421. By now, only the 3MARVELLOUS(!) LUNATICS BALL 1is the area for the 3GAWPERS1. If this will change? Who knows... Pathes have been staked out, what the writers will learn may be read on another paper.