Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: June 2009

Memorandum to All Staff

Re: Questions and concerns re: recent alterations to the Budget Allocation column on Document 26.a (Funds Request form) and Document 29.d (Expenditure Report form)

On May 15, 2009, the company issued a memorandum to all staff regarding the addition of a fourth selectable option, “Research Purposes,” to the Budget Allocation column on document 26.a (Funds Request form) and 29.d (Expenditure Report form), both of which had previously offered only “Medical Advancement,” “Technological Development” and “Military Prototype” as viable resource acquisition delegations. Since the institution of this change on June 1, 2009, the company has received numerous questions and concerns from multiple departments; the following document has been prepared to address the most prevalent and pressing queries and issues.

Note that, where appropriate, specific questions and comments have been re-stated verbatim to preserve relevant examples presented therein.

Q: Previously, all artillery-related projects were to be allocated under “Military Prototype,” even if said projects were currently unmarketable, but still integral in the pre-emptive development of weaponry for use in pending American conflicts. Should weapons projects that will only prove lucrative in the future, such as anti-mantis missiles or a rifle that can only be fired at women, retain their current “Military Prototype” designation, or be classified under the new “Research Purposes” category?

A: Any technology developed that’s unmarketable as a result of its incompatibility with the current socio-cultural marketplace should henceforth be allocated under “Research Purposes.” These projects will remain under the research designation until such time as all mantids, female humans, et al, require military suppression and/or an official threat of tactical action.

Q: Previously, if a project demonstrated simultaneous potential in more than one of the three available budget allocation categories, departments were encouraged to indicate every category that applied, with the understanding that funds would be divided equally between those divisions. Is this still the case? For example, the laser grenade that’s also a flash drive or the homing pigeon with OxyContin for blood – still dual allocation, or simply “Research Purposes”?

A: From today on, any project that legitimately demands partial funding from two separate budgetary divisions should request funding from the “Research Purposes” budget. Note, however, that the above examples DO NOT fulfill the requirements for dual allocation. Homing pigeons and flash drives already exist and are, therefore, exempt from development funding eligibility. These projects should have always been allocated singularly – “Medical Advancement” for the opioid animal blood and “Technological Development” for the laser grenade. Only projects requiring dual development funding, such as a laser grenade that’s also a cell phone for ghosts, or a manticore with OxyContin for blood, are eligible for dual allocation.

Q: Our department recently worked on developing an erectile disappointment medication, intended to alter optical perception by creating specific distress in neural feedback to create the illusion that the user’s sexual partner possessed a penis that surpassed said partner’s actual penile dimensions in both length and girth. This pill was initially allocated as a “Medical Advancement.” Once the project was completed, it was discovered that the medication was unsuccessful in its goal, but did generate an unpredicted (and still unexplained) powerful empathic shockwave that transmitted the user’s disappointment to their partner, causing immediate and permanent impotence. In a case like this, should funds allocation transfer to the most accurate specific qualification (in this case, “Military Prototype”), or default to the newly created “Research Purposes” category?

A: If substantial evidence for re-allocation of a project to one of the other two specific designations can be provided via the completion and additional filing of Document 33.e, this action is acceptable. In absence of, or inability to rigorously defend, the filing of Document 33.e, please default allocation to “Research Purposes.”

Q: What if a department is working on an extensive, difficult project, tires of it and decides that it’s good enough the way it is, even if it’s only half done and doesn’t do anything? Departments used to not be allowed to do that. Would projects of this nature now be categorizable under “Research Purposes”?

A: Yes.

Q: In the past, a few departments have been using most of the day on Friday to flirt with inebriation and play darts, using a copy of Document 29.d as the board. Previously, each of the three check boxes in the Budget Allocation category counted as an outer bull hit (the company logo is currently the only place to earn an inner bull hit). Now that there is an additional box, making those check boxes 33.3% easier to hit, how should the boxes be scored? Should each one now count as a triple ring hit? If so, which portion of the document replaces the budget allocation check boxes as an outer bull hit?

A: Going forward, count any part of the letterhead itself, including the logo, as an out-of-play area. Score the three pre-existing check boxes (“Medical Advancement,” “Technological Development” and “Military Prototype”) as outer bull hits. Use the new “Research Purposes” check box as the only area of the document valued as an inner bull hit. If problems persist, the company will consider resizing each individual check box to size specifications more conducive to fun, competitive play.

The company appreciates the time and attention that everyone has put into reading the above information and, if applicable, assimilating it into their respective department’s routine and functions. If you have any other questions or concerns relating to the recent alterations to the Budget Allocation column on Document 26.a (Funds Request form) and Document 29.d (Expenditure Report form) that weren’t addressed above, contact your direct supervisor.

Marlie Chaples
Executive Accountant


Here it is.

I’m back.

And this time, it’s for good (meaning permanently. Intention-wise, it’s for evil). As they say in the trailers for those movies where communists blow up a helicopter and Steven Seagal’s wife is on the helicopter so Steven lubes up his p-tail and puts his fist through a Russian, “This time, it’s personal!”

I’ve been contemplating a lot in the interim. I’ve also gotten good at rattling chains. I’ve even rattled one of those big ship chains where every link is almost the size of an entire regular chain (waste of time). I do like thinking of obscene messages and then firing them down into slumber party Ouija board pointers.

Child screams are like The Beatles for me now, but I guess you knew that already.

I’m getting off topic.

As I said, I’ve been contemplating a lot in the interim, and what I contemplated is that I’m going to haunt you now, but not for the reasons you’d think.

Like, you probably remember the time we summoned that Norse god of passion because you said your sister didn’t have anyone to ask to the Sadie Hawkins dance, but then it actually just turned out that you didn’t have anyone dressed in a Viking helmet to blow in the hot tub. Well, guess what? I’m over that. Fate balanced those scales when I took your sister to the Sadie Hawkins dance and we had a really fun time. Her friends are so funny!

I know you too well. Right now, you’re thinking about when we needed to make a blood offering to Mithros and, even though you were on your period, you made me cut off my pinky because you said that Mithros didn’t like “box wine.” There I was, standing around like an idiot, hand gushing blood into the runic incisions on the altar, when Mithros rose out of the black flames, high fived you and handed you $10. And he was all, “Holy thunderforce, I can’t believe he actually did it.” And then you guys left me and went to some hoity-toity wine tasting. Can’t believe I did what? You never told me. I guess it was some inside joke between you and Mithros.

HONK, HONK, Chocolate goose!

Oh, sorry. Inside joke. From the Sadie Hawkins dance. Your sister’s friends really are so funny! I mean, don’t get me wrong, Mithros is pretty funny, too. I guess. But let’s face it, he’s no Jocelyn Evans. I tell you…that girl… well, nevermind. I’m getting off topic again. I’m not haunting you because of Mithros.

Now that you know that, you’re probably asking the big question: “Is it because of that time I acted like a total bitch, slit your throat with a cursed Babylonian dagger and then shoved the Amulet of N’rholabm into the wound so that you’d be forced to forever roam the ruined vapor lands between Earth and the underrealm, craving blood, but unable to drink, and hearing the chorus of ‘Love Me Do’ in the screams of every living child?”

Sorry. Wrong again.

I don’t mind it here. I get to float around and rattle chains and listen in on Jocelyn’s hilarious jokes when she’s out with your sister. Plus, ever since the dimensional re-zoning kick-started gentrification, the vapor lands really aren’t even that ruined anymore.

No. I’m haunting you for the same reason you gave last Halloween when I asked you why you ate more than half of my candy corn and laid that massive Chinese food fart in my werewolf mask.

The same reason you gleefully stated when I demanded to know why you used that nard-rupturing spell to kill the divorce attorney I hired.

A precise echo of the explanation, which you made through gritted teeth and an (I have to admit) erotic sneer, that I begged for as I choked and sweated against the stone Babylonian blade that you enthusiastically pressed against my throat before letting my blood spray all over that white dress you insisted on buying, even though I told you when we were there at Banana Republic that you were just going to end up spilling something on it.

And there you were swearing that everything I said was bullshit. Well, now take a look at that dress you had to have, sweetheart.

I know. Off topic.

Why am I haunting you?


That’s right.

Just because.

How’s that feel?

No, really. I want to know. Use the enchanted semaphore flag you bought at that grand magus’ estate sale to tell me. And don’t pretend that you don’t feel like the biggest idiot ever. Also, try to use fairly basic signals because I don’t actually understand semaphore.

If the flag’s, like, pointing down at the ground, it means sadness. And upsetness.

And the humble admission of one’s guilt and utter wrongness.

I think we both know which way the flag will point.