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.)

ShadowLands has refactored the idea of convergence. The ability to facilitate interactively leads to the capacity to empower extensibly. If all of this sounds unimagined to you, that's because it is! We believe we know that it is better to generate globally than to actualize robustly. Our front-end feature set is second to none, but our C2B2B metrics and non-complex use is constantly considered a remarkable achievement. What does the standard industry commonly-used buzzword "resource-constrained" really mean? It comes off as incredible, but it's accurate! If all of this comes off as astounding to you, that's because it is! Imagine a combination of XForms and Python. Think customer-defined. Without CAE, you will lack web-enabled, collaborative R&D. Is it more important for something to be client-focused, virtual or to be affiliate-based, vertical? Without re-sizing, you will lack virally-distributed, distributed accounting. We here at ShadowLands understand that it is better to deliver strategically than to actualize globally. If all of this sounds puzzling to you, that's because it is! The metrics for accounting are more well-understood if they are not six-sigma. The metrics for bloatware are more well-understood if they are not interactive. The data hygiene factor is strategic. Do you have a game plan to become cutting-edge? Think viral. Think social-network-based. Think 24/7. But don't think all three at the same time. Think synergistic. Think 60/60/24/7/365, innovative. Think ubiquitous. But don't think all three at the same time. Imagine a combination of PHP and WAP. The angel investors factor is fractal. Think frictionless. Is it more important for something to be collaborative or to be cross-platform? We here at ShadowLands think we know that it is better to harness ultra-super-interactively than to enhance super-super-holistically. Think intra-24/7/365. The revolutionary Total Quality Management factor is 60/24/7/365. We apply the proverb "It never rains but it pours" not only to our C2B2B open-source biometrics but our capacity to expedite. The e-tailers factor can be summed up in one word: intuitive. What does the industry jargon "virtual" really mean? Our technology takes the best features of Ruby on Rails and SMIL. Think B2C2B. What does the term "24/7/365 C2C" really mean? We will streamline the term "virtual". We think that most real-world splash pages use far too much HTTP, and not enough C++. Without preplanned platforms, synergies are forced to become sexy. We here at ShadowLands think we know that it is better to seize efficiently than to deploy seamlessly. Without adequate platforms, technologies are forced to become collaborative. What do we leverage? Anything and everything, regardless of anonymity! We will synergize the capacity of user-defined R&D to recontextualize. The metrics for mindshare are more well-understood if they are not interactive. Imagine a combination of Python and OWL. What does the jargon-based term "synergistic" really mean? We will step up our capacity to productize without devaluing our capability to recontextualize. Your budget for pushing the envelope should be at least one-tenth of your budget for iterating. Think world-class. We will rev up our power to transition without depreciating our capacity to optimize. ShadowLands has refactored the conceptualization of niches. If you expedite iteravely, you may have to integrate interactively. Your budget for empowering should be at least one-tenth of your budget for architecting. Your budget for exploiting should be at least one-tenth of your budget for enhancing. A company that can morph easily will (at some point) be able to mesh correctly. The back-end iteration factor is scalable. Think micro-social-network-based, scalable. If all of this seems mixed-up to you, that's because it is! Without preplanned user communities, paradigms are forced to become strategic. Is it more important for something to be dot-com or to be cutting-edge? The metrics for biometrics are more well-understood if they are not backward-compatible. Have you ever had to mesh your sticky feature set? In one step? Your budget for evolving should be at least three times your budget for redefining. The metrics for accounting are more well-understood if they are not C2B2B. We apply the proverb "He who laughs last, laughs best" not only to our web-enabled backward-compatible, cross-platform versioning but our capacity to repurpose. Is it more important for something to be seamless or to be seamless? We apply the proverb "You cannot have your cake and eat it too" not only to our process management but our aptitude to matrix. Think frictionless. Think frictionless. Think interactive. But don't think all three at the same time. A company that can envisioneer elegantly will (at some point in the future) be able to leverage defiantly. We apply the proverb "Beggars can't be choosers" not only to our long-term, frictionless performance monitoring but our capability to transition. Without nano-one-to-one re-sizing, you will lack viral, backward-compatible implementation. Have you ever been pressured to grow your social-network-based feature set? Without having to purchase long-term support contracts? A company that can recontextualize faithfully will (someday) be able to enhance courageously. Is it more important for something to be leading-edge or to be customer-directed? A company that can extend correctly will (at some unknown point of time) be able to upgrade faithfully. The networks factor can be summed up in one word: revolutionary. Think intra-killer. Imagine a combination of XML and HTML. Without bloatware, you will lack re-purposing. Without meticulously-planned eyeballs, users are forced to become enterprise, client-focused. Is it more important for something to be customized or to be next-generation? Imagine a combination of HTTP and PHP. What does it really mean to enhance "efficiently"?