Damned if I know! I mean, I even included
and it zipped past them like a message from Robin Hood.
Ahem. This is where someone says “if you can find a single person on this board who thinks MF is funny, I’ll kiss your ass on Main Street”.
Except it won’t be me. Chances are there actually IS at least one such idiot out there.
Man, is this thread still cooking? What, exactly, is left to say?
When I read the OP a few hours ago, I remember thinking, “I wonder how many people got whooshed by this.” Then I kept reading.
Thanks, 'luci, we needed a good breeze here to dispel some of the humidity! 
Maybe you’re right, maybe if the bear and the stick were on different shoes . . . but even I can distinguish between trolling and banter, a wind-up and a joshing. I just can’t see that this was intended to deliberately offend, it wasn’t even supposed to whoosh.
What’s the old saying, you can lead Conservatives to water but you can’t make him take his pills. Oh well . . .
Chalk me up as one who clearly saw the OP as poking fun at the study, rather than conservatives. My (far less entertaining to read) interpretation was something like this:
“Psychologists at Berkely are implying conservatism is a mental ilness. What an absurd idea! Even one as liberal as myself must laugh at this one!”
All you who found offense in the OP, permit me to ask – if the same post had been written by someone you didn’t recognize, rather than elucidator, would you have jumped to the same conclusions about its intent?
I thought it was hilarious, but I also live near Cambridge. The OP is familiar territory. And imo elucidator’s distinct prose is worth suffering through a bit of liberal wiseassery, anyway.
He knows it though. 
Well, whether elucidator was joking or not, the study he cited is real enough. So, what does the study say are the defining characteristics of the conservative psychosis?
- A DESIRE TO RETURN TO A GOLDEN AGE, AN IDYLLIC PAST.
Hey, sounds like the liberals who still dream of JFK and a return to Camelot! Or the old hippies who want to return to a harmonious, blissful state of nature, and live the way the Indians did!
- RESISTENCE TO CHANGE, AND A DESIRE TO RETAIN THE STATUS QUO.
Wow- sounds a lot like the Texas Democrats, who haven’t won ANY statewide elections in over a decade, but who insist that Congressional districts (which currently give them a big advantage over the Republicans) must NEVER be changed!
- HUMORLESSNESS AND INABILITY TO LAUGH AT THEMSELVES.
Have you ever seen Ralph Nader crack a smile? And that Noam Chomsky, boy, THERE’S a guy you’d want to invite to your next party!
Wow, it appears that all the leftists I’ve disdained over the years are actually CONSERVATIVES! Who knew?
As for us ordinary Republicans, I think Cal Thomas put it best: we don’t mind being diagnosed as having a mental illness, PROVIDED we get to park in handicapped spots at the mall.
Actually, I did miss that and must admit it’s a nice line. Alternatively, you could have gone for a Helen Lovejoy style “Won’t someone think of the poor, poor conservatives”…nah, your line was better.
I guess that’s the problem, elucidator. You’ve kind of been a bit…repetitive in constantly singling out conservatives for criticism and condemnation. It’s a bit of a shame as the heavily partisan rhetoric actually drowns out a lot of amusing and interesting content, such as the above.
Oh, and please accept that I realise you’ve no reason to listen to any of the above, as it’s purely an opinion from an anonymous poster.
What I think is throwing everyone off is…
Main Entry: elu·ci·date
Pronunciation: i-'lü-s&-"dAt
Function: verb
transitive senses : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis
intransitive senses : to give a clarifying explanation
I have every reason. You may be right. I might be wrong.
But do you really think there is some advantage in being even-handed simply for the pretense of open-mindedness? I can easily cop to being “opinonated” in the sense of “I am firm, you are stubborn, he is a pig-headed fool.”
Humor without preaching is mere piffle, any fool can do it, any fool can listen, neither benefits. Fuck that shit.
So, on the one hand, you get taken to the woodshed for a particularly vapid OP, and you claim that you were just joking and people are taking it too seriously.
On the other hand, you imply that you don’t do humor (however utterly lame it might be) without preaching.
Which is it?
You know whats cool?
You can believe whatever you want.
That’s really cool.
And you can’t possibly be this interested in my personality, can you?
But.
It wasn’t even funny.
It has to be funny to qualify as humor.
Your OP comes off as naked vitriol, hidden behind a veneer of facetiousness meant to protect you from your own words.
That’s how it comes off.
-So say I. (and it’s rumored that I know how to tell a funny.)
Piffle. You knew I was out for a lark from the first sentence. When you saw the crowd ganging up, you jumped in for a couple of cheap swipes at Betty Noyer.
You should stick to domestic comedies, you make a good Dagwood.
Well I thought it was funny. Not “Archie Comics funny”, but good for a chuckle. Especially the “action of an unspecified nature” bit.
And Scylla’s joke was funny too. I like both you guys. Why can’t we all just get along?
Yeah, I thought they were both funny, too. Scylla, it’s one thing to say that Mallard Fillmore isn’t funny – there’s not a soul on this planet that laughs at that comic, not even its author (I hear tell the author finishes each strip, gazes at it for a full minute, then cries himself to sleep).
But even I, a dyed-in-the-wool librul, can see that Limbaugh has good comic timing and can tell a funny (if mean-spirited and disingenuous) joke. It surprises me that you can’t recognize elucidator’s style, even if you disagree with its substance. And hell, I disagree with your political posts more often than not – but when you make a joke in them, I can appreciate its humor.
Oh well. De gustibus and all.
Daniel
**
I recognize the style. I have given credit to elucidator for pulling a good yuck, where he has done so.
This OP, is just not funny. All that leaves is mean.
I repeat. Not funny.
Ironically, elucidator’s rhetorical counterpart on the conservative side seems to have addressed this very subject. Not only that, she manages to pull about 3 yucks doing it.
Ahh. Damn. I lost the link. Next post.
Yeesh – elucidator’s not funny, but that is? As I said, de gustibus.
Daniel
Things funnier that Ann Coulter:
Leper colony baseball leagues
Dostoyevsky
Yoko Ono
The Jeffrey Dahmer Cookbook
Shoah
dead baby jokes
The Killing Fields, The Musical
Carrot Top
P.J. O’Rourke’s drinking problem
I can’t recall the poster who nailed this one but:
“Ann Coulter is proof positive that rabies is not invariably fatal.”