…But not your OP.
You can repeat it all you like. It won’t change the fact that it’s just your opinion, and others do think it’s funny.
Really, Scylla, I’m a bit disappointed. This whining is beneath you. First the not-so-thinly-veiled accusations of trolling, and then, when that didn’t work out, the plaintive wails of “Elucidator is a big meanie!”
Come on, man! I thought you were tougher than that.
He is, and there are several bears who can testify to this.
How about that one over there, with the boquet of flowers and the box of chocolates?
Dear ‘elucidator’,
I must confess that I’ve initially interpreted your OP as a vitriolic diatribe. As far as vitriolic diatribes go, it wasn’t bad. Not vicious enough, but certainly quite venomous. On the 1-10 scale I’d give it a well-deserving 7.
However, from your following explanations it became apparent that you sincerely intended your OP as a good-natured joke. I must say that it was a big disappointment, because as a good-natured joke it fails miserably. Good-natured jokes have to be perfectly balanced. First, they have to provoke and may be even enrage the opponent, which, granted, you’ve done to perfection, and then disarm him, which is crucial. Disarming ticked-off opponent leaves him feeling ridiculous in his rage and lacking a target, the result being the amused chuckle, which is precisely the objective of any good-natured joke. The best way to disarm the opponent is by self-deprecation. To be fair, you tried to do exactly that at your last sentence, but you didn’t go far enough to compensate for all the preceding abuse, so your joke came out very unbalanced. On the scale 1-10 I’d give it a generous 2.
Perhaps, if instead of finishing with:
you were to say something like:
it would bring your joke to a perfect balance and made it much better.
P.S. In view of your demonstrated deficiency to comprehend the intricate issues of exquisite humor and refined sentiment, you will have to consult with me before posting anything for a foreseeable future. In case my ability to enlighten you via the Internet will be impeded by mine wearing a straightjacket, it will be incumbent upon you to visit me in person so I can enlighten you verbally. My padded cell is just down the hall, so you won’t have to travel far.
Jesus. A guy tries to tell a joke, and gets lectured on humor theory?
Unworthy of some of you. Others of you may need to read some theory yourself before you presume to enter the lecture circuit.
Daniel
Has anyone mentioned that some of us may be taking our selves too seriously?
Some of me deem themselves worthy. The others of me say: “Piffle!”. The serious ones of me spit on scurrilous attacks.
This whole thread cracks me up. I mean, really. Well-known liberal poster comes across a study by iconic leftist university which, if misread in a casual way, suggests that conservatism is a mental disorder. Said poster mocks this reading of the study outrageously. Then hordes of conservatism bitch and moan about the vitriol. What vitriol? You mean the mocking vitriol aimed at the Berkeley study? The irony of conservatives protesting the “mean-spiritedness” of the way in which the liberal poster skewered the study making ridiculous overgeneralizations about conservatives - just priceless. Ah me. A good laugh is a fine thing. Oh, and the bear joke was pretty good too.
Q. How many Fundy right-wing rednecks does it take to change a light bulb?
A. That’s Evangelical Christian, that’s conservative, that’s rural, and that’s not funny!
Daniel
Well, I’ve been thinking very seriously about this possibility…
New Iskander
I am touched by the generosity of your offer to collaborate as a “junior partner”, but must decline. Frankly, your credentials leave much to be desired. For instance, your presumed “improvement” on my “immediate action” line. Yours has more words. Worse still, uneeded words. You cannot improve a joke by adding words any more than you can improve a really good single malt by peeing in it.
Further, didn’t you just admit that you didn’t know it was a joke when you saw it? That you immediately assumed it was a churlish slur upon our esteemed conservative brethren? And from me, of all people, who embodies the passivity and timidity of liberal ideology.
If you would like to sharpen the pencils and sit quietly, but attentively, at my feet you will be regarded with genial and avuncular tolerance, so long as you do not actually express any opinons (beyond gasps of admiration and quiet applause). I should then be forced to release the hounds.
I thought it was funny. I laughed out loud at the “action of an unspecified nature” line.
Some of us (and that includes all of me) may be new-comers and tend to judge posts on their merits as opposed to the poster’s political affiliations.
Terribly sorry.
Sure, but in the BBQ Pit?
Dear ‘elucidator’,
You continue to disappoint me with your selfish and greedy disposition. The lesson I was trying to teach you was that to make a good-natured joke one has to be self-deprecating and expose oneself in somewhat ridiculous manner. Look at ‘Scylla’, who suggested that he might have been repeatedly raped by bears of increasing size and ferocity: that is not an easy thing for a man to put forward! Look at me, trying to address you from an asylum. But you are always perfect and irreproachable. You admit to no serious weakness. That’s why your jokes suck.
Conservatives may be touched by insanity, but liberals have no sense of humor. So there.
This just might be the least self-aware statement ever, coming as it does from the SDMB king of unnecessary verbal pyrotechnics. Cocktail time at the Elucidator residence must be a positive Ayurvedic experience.
Well, ‘elucidator’, where are those hounds?
You promised to “release the hounds”, remember?
Just out of curiosity, how many hounds have you got?
Not that I’m scared or anything…
I’m no hero, but if some people can deal with bears, I take my chance with your hounds, sure.
From the linked article in the OP:
Judging by some of the earlier rabid responses in this thread, the reasearchers were at least spot on about the Fear and Aggresion part.
Daniel