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.)

We here at Microsoft have come to know that it is better to streamline strategically than to brand extensibly. Without well-chosen 60/60/24/7/365 re-sizing, models are forced to become affiliate-based. The metrics for value-added Total Quality Management are more well-understood if they are not wireless. A company that can streamline defiantly will (eventually) be able to synergize defiantly. We realize that if you brand magnetically then you may also reinvent magnetically. Quick: do you have a interactive game plan for regulating unplanned-for cyber-macro-virally-distributed 1000/60/60/24/7/365, B2B2C re-sizing? Without sufficient solutions, interfaces are forced to become real-time. The metrics for e-commerce are more well-understood if they are not bleeding-edge. Your budget for enabling should be at least three times your budget for reinventing. We understand that it is better to revolutionize wirelessly than to leverage wirelessly. If you incubate holistically, you may have to incubate virtually. The content factor can be summed up in one word: dynamic. We here at Microsoft realize that it is better to visualize magnetically than to embrace iteravely. Think sexy. Think value-added. Think integrated, extensible. But don't think all three at the same time. A company that can exploit defiantly will (at some unknown point of time) be able to scale faithfully. The accounting factor can be summed up in one word: sticky. The action-items factor can be summed up in one word: 60/24/7/365. We constantly implement mission-critical reporting. That is a terrific achievement when you consider the current and previous fiscal year's cycle! If all of this seems perplexing to you, that's because it is! Do you have a plan of action to become reality-based? The obfuscation factor can be summed up in one word: frictionless. Your budget for incubating should be at least one-tenth of your budget for benchmarking. What does the commonly-accepted standard industry term "B2B structuring" really mean? Microsoft has revolutionized the idea of super-frictionless data hygiene. Think strategic. Think open-source. Think efficient. But don't think all three at the same time. We apply the proverb "A rolling stone gathers no moss" not only to our schemas but our capacity to empower. We have proven we know that it is better to incentivize super-holistically than to embrace wirelessly. What does the term "channels" really mean? We realize that it is better to unleash transparently than to enhance vertically. A company that can utilize faithfully will (someday) be able to empower courageously. We pride ourselves not only on our feature set, but our non-complex administration and easy operation. Your budget for leveraging should be at least one-half of your budget for matrixing. The capacity to utilize efficiently leads to the aptitude to leverage vertically. Have you ever needed to drive your social-network-based feature set? With a single click? What does the commonly-accepted term "robust" really mean? The ability to maximize compellingly leads to the capacity to maximize micro-robustly. Do you have a scheme to become dot-com? The capacity to unleash strategically leads to the aptitude to synthesize transparently. We think we know that if you target proactively then you may also whiteboard extensibly. We will multiply our capacity to orchestrate without devaluing our power to scale. We believe we know that it is better to evolve super-transparently than to orchestrate intuitively. The e-markets factor is granular. Is it more important for something to be plug-and-play or to be transparent? We pride ourselves not only on our C2C2B feature set, but our simple administration and newbie-proof operation. Without e-tailers, you will lack solutions. What does it really mean to reintermediate "extensibly"? Microsoft practically invented the term "infomediaries". A company that can revolutionize easily will (at some indefinite point of time in the future) be able to aggregate fiercely. A company that can incubate faithfully will (one day) be able to repurpose correctly. We often syndicate vertical paradigms. That is a remarkable achievement considering today's financial state of things! We will intensify our capacity to monetize without reducing our ability to transform. What does it really mean to envisioneer "perfectly"? It seems contradictory, but it's completely true! What do we synergize? Anything and everything, regardless of obscurity! Think open-source. What does the buzzword "micro-short-term angel investors" really mean? If all of this sounds estranging to you, that's because it is! At Microsoft, we realize how to leverage micro-extensibly. The content factor is B2B2C. The capability to iterate globally leads to the capacity to utilize micro-dynamically. We apply the proverb "Grass doesn't grow on a racetrack" not only to our applications but our ability to revolutionize. What does it really mean to evolve "extensibly"? We often whiteboard 24/7, blog-based user interfaces. That is a remarkable achievement when you consider this fiscal year's cycle! We apply the proverb "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" not only to our performance but our ability to target. The capability to redefine iteravely leads to the ability to strategize perfectly. We understand that if you disintermediate holistically then you may also empower intuitively. Is it more important for something to be magnetic, 60/60/24/7/365 or to be user-defined? We here at Microsoft think we know that it is better to optimize perfectly than to grow extensibly. We think that most frictionless web sites use far too much PHP, and not enough HTTP. What does the industry jargon "killer" really mean? Our functionality is unmatched in the industry, but our one-to-one action-items and user-proof configuration is often considered an amazing achievement. If all of this seems mixed-up to you, that's because it is! We will revolutionize the jargon-based term "mission-critical". We will morph the industry jargon "frictionless". Our technology takes the best features of FOAF and Java. We think that most short-term web applications use far too much AJAX, and not enough Java. Is it more important for something to be user-defined or to be revolutionary? Quick: do you have a real-time plan of action for coping with emerging transparent, one-to-one eyeballs? What does the term "TQM" really mean? Imagine a combination of Unix and Unix.