Re: [OT] dry humor
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:47:11 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 July 2010 21:23:22 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Youtube and pr0n are the stereotypical/archetypal Flash applications.
>> If I'd included a winky or tongue-out emoticon, no one would have said
>> a word about my post, just grinned slightly as they read it, or thought
>> to themselves "that wasn't really funny" and moved on.
>
> No matter how many emoticons you had included, I should still have had
> to look up what you meant by pr0n, and wish I hadn't when I had. It's
> not funny on a list frequented by all ages and both genders, doubly so
> without the facial expressions (emoticons) which indicate that, even if
> the reader doesn't find it so, the writer intended it to be humourous.
Maybe we are being a bit strict with that comment. In fact, when I read
the full paragraph it took me a "half-smile" because I caught the "irony"
behind it.
O.k, not everybody is able to catch the words in the right context and
written text (without such "edulcorants" smilies ) can sometimes sound a
bit "rude".
I understood it was just a joke, and knowing the Adobe Flash trajectory
(it is indeed the preferred container for delivering media streaming in
almost 95% of Internet A/V content), I took Stan H. comment more than a
statistical note than anything else.
:-) ← yes, that is an smiley face.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: