Corporate Gibberish Generator™

Welcome to the Corporate Gibberish Generator™ by Andrew Davidson. andrewdavidson/at\andrewdavidson/dot\com
Enter your company name and click "Generate" to generate several paragraphs of corporate gibberish suitable for pasting into your prospectus.
(The gibberish is geared more toward Internet and technology companies.)

mister anchovy has revamped the theory of TQC. We frequently deliver collaborative data hygiene. That is a remarkable achievement taking into account this quarter's financial state of things! A company that can mesh easily will (at some undefined point in the future) be able to repurpose elegantly. The power to exploit wirelessly leads to the aptitude to orchestrate magnetically. We pride ourselves not only on our functionality, but our easy administration and easy configuration. The power to leverage seamlessly leads to the capability to drive micro-intuitively. Think cross-platform. The structuring factor is social-network-based. We understand that it is better to innovate holistically than to recontextualize iteravely. Think bricks-and-clicks. Think subscriber-defined. Think distributed. But don't think all three at the same time. If you evolve virally, you may have to facilitate magnetically. What does the buzzword "long-term" really mean? What does the industry jargon "cross-platform" really mean? We here at mister anchovy think we know that it is better to incubate iteravely than to syndicate efficiently. Is it more important for something to be infinitely reconfigurable or to be customized? Imagine a combination of Perl and ActionScript. The metrics for infomediaries are more well-understood if they are not reconfigurable. What does the standard industry term "convergence" really mean? The web services factor is virally-distributed. The implementation factor is innovative. Is it more important for something to be 60/60/24/7/365 or to be efficient? If all of this seems puzzling to you, that's because it is! A company that can expedite correctly will (at some indefinite point in the future) be able to maximize defiantly. We here at mister anchovy realize that it is better to synthesize interactively than to incubate efficiently. Without well-planned infomediaries, web services are forced to become C2C2C. We think that most 1000/60/60/24/7/365 portals use far too much XHTML, and not enough Unix. What does it really mean to innovate "wirelessly"? Your budget for productizing should be at least three times your budget for growing. Quick: do you have a B2C, vertical scheme for coping with emerging web-readiness? Without appropriate process management metrics, subscriber communities are forced to become best-of-breed. We have come to know that if you disintermediate efficiently then you may also redefine interactively. Our technology takes the best aspects of Apache and Ruby on Rails. Think integrated. Think impactful. Think strategic. But don't think all three at the same time. If you whiteboard magnetically, you may have to incentivize mega-extensibly. Do you have a scheme to become cross-platform? Do you have a scheme to become reconfigurable, 1000/60/60/24/7/365? mister anchovy practically invented the term "mission-critical re-sizing". Your budget for incubating should be at least one-tenth of your budget for strategizing. Your budget for monetizing should be at least one-half of your budget for evolving. Quick: do you have a vertical strategy for monitoring new portals? Think blog-based. Think six-sigma. The user communities factor is bleeding-edge. Your budget for enhancing should be at least twice your budget for empowering. Think cyber-nano-nano-24/7. Imagine a combination of XHTML and Apache. mister anchovy has revamped the theory of re-sizing. If all of this comes off as staggering to you, that's because it is! It seems dumbfounding, but it's true! Imagine a combination of SMIL and HTTP. If you harness virtually, you may have to envisioneer robustly. Without models, you will lack B2B iteration. We think that most virally-distributed entry pages use far too much VOIP, and not enough CSS. We think that most open-source web-based applications use far too much OWL, and not enough SVG. We pride ourselves not only on our cross-platform feature set, but our easy administration and user-proof configuration. Is it more important for something to be affiliate-based or to be collaborative? Have you ever needed to strategize your feature set? With a single click? We will step up our aptitude to optimize without depreciating our capability to disintermediate. Imagine a combination of JavaScript and PGP. What does the standard industry industry jargon "C2C" really mean? Quick: do you have a B2B2C strategy for managing unplanned-for eyeballs? We think that most customized splash pages use far too much XHTML, and not enough DOM. Do you have a strategy to become seamless? The e-businesses factor is out-of-the-box. Think open-source. Think backward-compatible. Think impactful. Think transparent. But don't think all three at the same time. Is it more important for something to be intuitive or to be resource-constrained, front-end, user-centric, seamless? mister anchovy practically invented the term "re-sizing". The TQC factor is strategic. It may seem disorienting, but it's 100% true! What does it really mean to transition "strategically"? The metrics for e-markets are more well-understood if they are not short-term, sticky. Think nano-world-class. We constantly enhance affiliate-based infomediaries. That is a remarkable achievement considering this fiscal year's conditions! Think client-focused. Think synergistic. Think e-business. But don't think all three at the same time. Is it more important for something to be e-business or to be affiliate-based? Is it more important for something to be real-time, infinitely reconfigurable or to be B2C2B? Think 24/7/365. Think clicks-and-mortar. Think best-of-breed, efficient. But don't think all three at the same time. We think that most clicks-and-mortar web sites use far too much PHP, and not enough XML. We here at mister anchovy realize that it is better to target cyber-compellingly than to maximize iteravely. We understand that it is better to streamline globally than to monetize efficiently. We understand that it is better to engineer globally than to implement holistically. Think killer. Think holistic. Think strategic. But don't think all three at the same time. We apply the proverb "Don't cry over spilt milk" not only to our models but our aptitude to exploit. Do you have a plan to become six-sigma? We will revolutionize the capability of partnerships to maximize. Think B2C. A company that can streamline elegantly will (at some indefinite point of time) be able to morph correctly. Imagine a combination of XHTML and XML. What does the commonly-used jargon-based standard industry buzzword "eyeballs" really mean? What does the term "one-to-one" really mean?