Re: [OT] dry humor
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 21:23:22 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Ron Johnson put forth on 7/6/2010 1:33 PM:
> > On 07/06/2010 01:40 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> Mark put forth on 7/5/2010 11:51 PM:
> >>> I admire the OP's class in his response. Thought that comment about
> >>> youtube
> >>> and pr0n was completely unnecessary and unsolicited when I read it.
> >>
> >> Dry humor doesn't include emoticons.
> >
> > "If you're that addicted to youtube and pr0n" is only dryly humorous
> > among friends.
>
> 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.
The inference that anyone who uses Flash must want it to watch pornography was
unpleasant and distasteful. I cannot be the only person who has never looked
at pornography, never will look at pornography and didn't know until now,
when you told us, that it ran on Flash.
Lisi
Reply to: