The long essay spamming method

This method, which I propose to spam an essay in an as short as possible span of time, is fully and totally created by me, while writing this long and useless essay, so take whatever advice here with a pinch of pepperoni pizza. Or some substitue that tastes roughly as nice.

This blogpost was written on notepad, and I have absolutely no idea how long/short it is at the moment, but I do plan to finish with this in 20 minutes, which means by 9:33 on my computer's clock time.

Next, on to a bit of history on this seemingly totally random topic, with actually a bit of cause behind it, hence it is not totally random. Basically, there was a piece of homework-like assignment thing that we were given, and we had to write a reflection on the common tests, and I wrote mine in about 5 minutes, and in total it contained about 150 words (144 to be exact, but I'm spamming). Next, my friend S-- asked me to help him print his reflections, and thinking that it might be as short as mine, I heartily agreed.

This is not a blogpost to complain about how much ink was wasted printing his reflections.

This blogpost, though, is inspired by his spamming ability, and after reading through his 1.6 thousand words of not really a lot of content, I decided to see what nonsense I can write (in the longest possible way, so as to be mildly convincing) about the topic of spamming a lot of words.

Firstly, there is the aim that we have to define. Obviously, if we have a lot of content (like topic=world and whatever happens today in this world), there will be a lot to write on (if you are really that desperate for words). In fact, if I were to type a report on my life today, 3000 words ought not to be a big problem apart from getting bored. Hence, there is actually a more refined aim of getting a good word to content ratio. This roughly means: more content, more words; less content, less words.

Hence, we will use this blogpost of limited content. The content was created while walking home from the MRT which is like a 5 minute walk away.

That is really not a lot of content (mind is dead from chessing for 4 hours straight today). Hence, my aim of 1000 words in 20 minutes is really a huge uphill task, and I don't even have a word counter. T_T.

So from here, I believe I have already wasted like 300 words, and for the people who value their time, discretion is advised on whether to read the full blogpost. I think it would be fun to read the first sentence of each paragraph though. I hope those make sense. Roughly.

Firstly, state your point.

Example:

I want to spam long essays about practically nothing.

Next, elaborate:

I have near zero content, but I want it to look like a full-fledged blogpost. Hence, I am wasting words. I can't think of a lot more, but I am still wasting words to prove the point.

Next, give examples:

As you can see from my previous 3 sentences, that was like 20 words out of nothing at all.

Next, elaborate on the examples:

If let say I had not included the past three sentences, would my content be reduced? Clearly not. However, to ensure my goal of making this blogpost exceed 1000 words while conforming to the 20 minute limit I randomly set myself to minimise time wastage, the goal would have been harder without the examples, but from the examples, it can be clearly seen that it is self-evident that... *word waste*... giving random examples which are not the main point will help to increase word count.

Before I forget, (or have I already mentioned)? The methods proposed here were not stolen from S--'s essay, nor modelled from it, but as a general afterthought of his essay being nearly 12 times my length. On with more essay about semirelevant points to the irrelevant and entropic topic.

Next, remember your introduction and conclusion (yes I forgot a good long word-wasting introduction, but now is fine):

On second thoughts, the introduction can be just ripped off the start of this post. It wasted 300 words about background stuff, which is not really relevant.

Next, attempt to keep repeating points. To not look like a complete failure trying to spam 1000 words in 20 minutes (50 wpm... wah!), you should attempt to vary your phrasing. For example, the same phrase "the delicious cake" could be written as "the cake that was delicious", "cake deliciousness", or "caky deliciousness", even though I'm not too sure caky is a word (cakey?).

As you can see, this is extremely important. If you strive not to repeat points, what content you see is what you get. However, the purpose of this essay is not to discuss situations where you have sufficient content to actually write something good, but rather on the other hand, write a good amount of stuff out of random thoughts and unorganised insights. Hence, repetition comes into the show. If you can repeat a 10-word idea 3 times, that is at least 30 words, but in fact, with bad phrasing "the boy who was bald like an eagle", you can extend "a bald boy" to something much more. And the total amount of content doesn't change!

Repetition is important. Even in literature. Have you seen books which use a catch-sentence? Like some random sentence that appears 20 times in different areas in a mere 5 pages of text, and would appear to have stemmed from a lazy author. And those are good literature, unlike this. With sufficiently low expectations, why not just do your own non-well-thought version of repetition and repeat the same idea?

Repetition is important. It allows you to get the point. It even helps readers to remember it without reading the same passage 3 times over. (because it is already repeated 3 times over in one passage; talk about time savings!).

Repetition is important. You got the point, I hope. If not...

Repetition is important...

Repetition is important... why are these words so long to type.

I have 2 minutes left now, actually less, and hence I will conclude this essay-like thing.

You must restate everything in a conclusion, but since I forgot most of it, I believe it can be summarised thus: introduction, where you state your idea briefly, point, where you state your point (try to split them up), examples (where you spam nonsense), elaboration on examples (uh oh), as well as repetition, which transcends the parts.

*20 minutes end, miscelleneous stuff*

I will attempt to read this myself, and then write a reflection post. Could really be useful for GP writing when you have 20 minutes left for an essay (except I can't write that fast. Ah well...)

The glass toilet door

Ok, now that is one totally random sounding title, but in fact, some of the readers which can be expressed in terms of p/q , where p and q are both integers. That might possibly be because this post is based on a real phenomenon that happens right at my house, in the toilet, and is related to nothing less than the glass toilet door (separating the shower and the rest of the toilet).

So this is what happens. The glass door is open. It is stationary (not a self-shutting door). I get extremely angry with the thought of certain examinations which I have just failed (Tis' called mix and match) and hence bang the door near the pivot. The door shakes wildly, and starts inching closer to closing... when I am frantically banging (ok doesn't work if I bang too hard) the door in the opposite direction. This appears to be a violation of physics, but I don't believe so. Can you solve the mystery before you read my theory about why the door flies opposite to the direction of the force(of banging)?

My theory shall be written in like... white?

This has, in fact a little bit to do with statistics :(. My theory is that the door is actually swinging inwards (tendency to close itself), but static friction is just sufficient to stop the motion of the door closing itself. However, when I bang the door near the pivot, this creates a small force acting against the rotation of the door towards closure, but it creates a large vibration for motion on both sides. Hence, you can think of it as a normal distribution with mean less than the initial force from the hinges in the same direction, but with the variance needed to occasionally overcome static friction. Bad explanation, but some people should get what I'm trying to say I guess...