This Unworthy One seeks a word, ME Buckner

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=263819&page=2&pp=50

Wherein Your Humble Servent is rebuked:

Seems to me, though I might be mistaken, that the much esteemed Minty and Sevastapol were having a bit o’ fun. In their badinage, I detected no real animosity or rancor, just a couple good ol’ boys taking a jocular pose of mutual pomposity. (Pomposity? Come now, Minty is a Texas boy, the very idea is absurd!)

I would have thought that the line “the popcorn is a coincidence” would have tipped you off that I was having a bit of a jape. In a way, a form of applause, encouraging the sort of good-humored riposte demonstrated by the aforementioned esteemed.

Propriety is all very well, but isn’t this sort of good-natured fun vastly superior, both in intent and content, to barely veiled contempt that skirts the rules, but violates the spirit? Are not the rules intended to promote civility and prudent discourse? Did you detect rancor and contempt that eluded me?

Now, if I was unclear, if, indeed, you sincerely believed that I was hoping to provoke bitterness and insult, I apologize. If you could misunderstand, so could another. I often depend on the reader’s capacity to detect wry irony without being smacked in the face with a smilie, so that the humor impaired might be advised of my intent.

Is that it? Had I included a smilie with my “popcorn” comment, would that have passed muster? Personally, I loathe smilies, can’t remember the last time I used one, if ever. But if such is needed to remain within the pale of your good graces, I suppose…

I took Minty and Sevastapol to be indulging in a bit of spoofery, as was my encouraging remark. I found thier conversation very informative. light-hearted, and respectful in the fashion that genial affection permits familiarity and eschews pomposity. Given that so many of our correspondents can skirt the rules of propriety while indulging themselves in barely masked contempt and calumny, I would have thought such refreshing.

I do not suggest that rules are made to be broken, but rules that cannot be tickled are petrified pomposities. Chains are not broken by such as these, nor ignorance dispelled, they are lifeless and deadening.

In no wise do I imply any disrespect for the difficulty of your task or the sincere effort clearly expended in pursuit of a worthy goal. I remain, as always,

Your humble servant,
e.

For the record, I deny the original accusation of insolence and the newer charge of pomposity, but plead inherently guilty to the lesser offense of smart-assery. It’s a fair cop.

Is smart-assery a felony or a misdemeanor? What kind of sentencing guidelines are you facing? Are there any factors in aggravation or mitigation? Would you like to make a statement on your behalf before sentence is imposed?

…but Society is to blame. When smart-assitude is outlawed, only outlaws will have any fun.

It seems to me that once you suppress the smart-asses then you have to go after the dumb-shits, the hysterical, the sanctimonious, the pompous, the willfully obtuse, the dumb-insolent, the neurotic and the clueless. Once that pogrom is completed there won’t be anybody left to play with but the patently insane. It’ll be like any other message board.

I say until it gets out of hand, let ‘em play. All this unnecessary officiating just slows the game down.

Alright, what did I do this time?

First they came for the smart-asses and I did not speak out because I was a dumb-ass.

Enjoy,
Steven

Secure in the knowledge that I be represented by the firm of Gelding and Green, Esqs., I post bail with serene aplomb.

(What, this? An airline ticket, yes, but I was going to cash it in in order to buy drugs and porno.)

What about the assholes? Won’t somebody think of the assholes??

I just want to say that my vanity search results, while fruitless as far as my vanity goes, are often interesting.

I don’t like to get in to what might have been said using the “Report this post” function, but there evidently was some real animosity developing there. It was not all light-hearted tomfoolery. In such situations (not good-natured ribbing, but people actually causing each other to lose their tempers), “I’m bringing the popcorn” remarks are not constructive.

I don’t want to stamp out smart-asses in Great Debates, but I would like to tone down the rancor a bit sometimes. There are good reasons for keeping all the flames and open attacks and highly creative musings on each other’s ancestry and personal habits down here in the Pit and away from the rest of the board.

No feelings were intended to be hurt on my part. I mean, jeez, we’re arguing about the interpretation and application of a treaty, not debating who’s got the fattest head.

“vanity search”?

Apparently Humble Servant has got the wrong name.

Well, there you have it! I mean, if one cannot trust a lawyer, and a Texan! Seperately, each are known as the very paragons of propriety, modesty, and demure decorum, but combined in one person as they are, how can there be any question?

Having seen Buck’s post to this thread, it becomes clear that my initial reaction that he was “heading trouble off at the pass” in his GD mod. chastisement is accurate. While elucidator may have thought it was good-natured raillery, it clearly ended up being a bit more serious. But on reading the OP and not having gotten to Buck’s post yet, I’d thought of commenting to eluc that while probably nothing to sweat in that particular circumstance, it could be used to justify similar stuff in real flamewars – something the Mods. seem dead set on stopping, for reasons that seem fairly obvious to me.

Hey, you might always use the old standby, “I deny the allegations and defy the allegator.” :wink:
And, Humble Servant? Didn’t you see the initial caps. in eluc’s OP here. Clearly what he’s doing is passing the buck and claiming that you, not he, was the one being chastized!! :smiley:

What’s this? WHAT’S THIS?!? I demand royalties!!!

Not fuckin’ likely.

Ha!! SPOOFE gets diddley!!

When you’re up to your ass in allegators…