I think he’s serious.
He doesn’t use smilies. When something’s written without smilies, it’s always literal.
I don’t care if it’s satire or serious. It’s really starting to wear on my nerves.
Oooo! I wondered what that tweak was after I logged off last night. Keep 'em coming, big boy. 
[sub]sorry, sorry–I get flirted with so rarely, I gotta get it where I can [/sub]
And taggart–unless you really are serious (and if you are, well, ick) it’d probably be a good idea to let a little bit of sanity show on a semi-regular basis. One-trick ponies can be amusing, but it wears off fast. Pace yourself.
Internet message boards are not the best place to try out this sort of sarcasm and satire. We don’t know each other, and the written word is not the best format for getting across some of the subtleties. A smiley (or something) is usually needed.
I agree, it might tend to wear thin. It isn’t that we are dense, it’s just that there aren’t always enough cues to detect the sarcasm. And then when you take into account that there are plenty of nutjobs that are serious—how do you tell the wheat from the chaff? You need a little help sometimes, figuring it all out.
It’s too much work sometimes, I tell ya.
I love how there are some people who think themselves “good Americans” yet openly attempt to subvert the Constitution with their religion.
I had to open this thread just to find out if it was about a misspelled evil god-brother, one who bothers others with God or one who actually goes to heaven and bothers Him personally (use a really long ladder for this.)
BTW, if tag is serious, he’s a loon. If he’s not, he’s getting tiresome. Either way he’s no longer dating Rachel.
(agreeing with Biggirl)
In that case it’s spelled “taggart.”
And it’s “Pesci” besides.
Well, Mel Brooks is known for taking one piece of shtick and using it over and over and over, long after it ceased being even mildly amusing.
Well, either:
a) He’s serious
b) He’s trolling or
c) It’s some kind of weird performance art thing
I’m not impressed by any of the options. But rather than tell you why, I’ll explain myself using the power of…
INTERPRETIVE DANCE!
…
…!
Thank you.
I fail to grasp the significance or relevance of this part. Are you supposed to be a flower? A geisha? Frying bacon?
To borrow from Douglas Adams, this part nicely counterpoints the surrealism of the underlying metaphor.
This part, however, had me in tears. I am awed.