--Enigmatic
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I hate to have to tell you this, but those comics suck. They suck every different way one may view them; comedy...suck irony...suck sarcasm...suck originality...suck to start a conversation...suck
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Oh my! You mean all this time we've been laughing at something which actually sucks and hadn't realized it? Thank goodness humor is not at all subjective and there was somebody brave enough to let us know they sucked, or else I may have continued enjoying something!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
yes, well, I like to do a bit of public service every now and then. I am currently capaigning for responsible humor. The essence of this camapign is an attempt to get people to laugh at things which are funny rather than things which are not, in fact, funny.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I thought the first one was rather funny. The rest, not so much. The term "straw dinosaur" comes to mind.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Actually the final link has a line in it that illustrates the author's understanding the neither science or religion has all the answers. And for what it's worth I did get a chuckle out of the blank ballon with an invitation for kids to play along by supplying whatever teachings they are familiar with.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, thinking about it, if you're not familiar with the comic, it does look like a straw dinosaur argument. An underlying motif of the comic is that the T-Rex often starts off the comic with a (often poorly realized) philosophical statement that the Utahraptor demolishes. I didn't take the refutation as meant to be serious, but I could see how people would.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Qwantz.com is GENIUS. If you don't find it funny, you're deficient in some way. Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
That's rude and uncalled for, Tom, graemlin or not.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: That's rude and uncalled for, Tom, graemlin or not.
I think Tom was trying to be funny. Now I have to go and involve him in my campaign for responsible humor.
quote: Qwantz.com is GENIUS. If you don't find it funny, you're deficient in some way.
Well, I am deficient in many ways, but fortunately neither humor, intelligence nor humility are my deficiencies.
See, when I read a comic I want the characters to either be clever or dumb, based on what type of humor is involved. This particular set of comics Squick posted can't seem to decide whether it wants to be snide or politically correct, neither of which is funny.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:An underlying motif of the comic is that the T-Rex often starts off the comic with a (often poorly realized) philosophical statement that the Utahraptor demolishes.
Calvin and Hobbes does it much better.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It's the same sort of comment KoM often makes, assumingly trying to be funny. But since generally Tom shows far more compassion and understanding for those who think/believe differently from him, we are more likely to take such an out-of-character comment as humorous than from KoM who never shows compassion or understanding for those who think/believe differently from him.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
<Started typing response after beverly's comment at reply #12.>
Yes, generally Tom does that. But Tom also occasionally makes blanket statements about things and seems to be quite serious. Opinions about humor is one of those things. Opinions about specific books, movies, or video games are others. Tom also has a tendency to bottom-line arguments: "The thing is this." And that thing isn't necessarily the thing where others are concerned, but he appears to expect it to be seen as such.
Tom responded to an OSC comment on the other side a couple weeks ago or so that he was now unable to tell when OSC was being humorous rather than serious in his columns, and would need to go back and re-read the columns in such a new light. I don't have time to do that for 20,000 posts of his. *smile*
I realize that we broke Tom of the "j/k " thing, and I'd hate for him to go back to it. I just don't think this particular comment of his was funny at all. (Since it's possible Tom has responded to this thread again in the time I took to type this, I apologize for referring to him in third person only.)
--Pop
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I'm sorry, but he was trying too hard for it to truly amuse me.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Nobody is all that interested, and the frog ends up dead." --No idea who to attribute that one to.
I think Tom was making the same point I was: There is no absolute right and wrong when it comes to humor. Just because one person does or does not find something funny doesn't mean it is or is not funny to others. Examples abound.
Now, in my opinion, I find J.S. and his "public service" to be unfunny, pompous, and rude. From this I postulate that J.S. is a big dummy poo-poo head, although this is of course still in the theoretical stages, pending further evidence.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Now, in my opinion, I find J.S. and his "public service" to be unfunny, pompous, and rude. From this I postulate that J.S. is a big dummy poo-poo head, although this is of course still in the theoretical stages, pending further evidence.
See, once again you demonstrate your inability to understand correct humor.
My public service comment was funny because it gently mocks you for taking my previous post too seriously. Your response to me by calling me pompous is funny because I really am pompous. My response to you is funny because it makes it seem that even though I laugh at you for taking my post too seriously, I am taking your post too seriously in exactly the same way. And my recognition of that fact in the very same post is also funny because it shows that I am not really taking your post all that seriously and I publicly recognize that fact. But then, my recognizing my recognition of that fact makes this post not only confusing but ironi, because by recognizing that I am purposely trying not to take your post seriously invokes the suspicion that, yes, I really am taking your post too seriously.
So which is it to be, seriously or not?
Wow. I would make a good psychoanalyst, eh Squick?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
err...What?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: err...What?
just a little non-sequitur, Squick.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am deeply, deeply disappointed in all of you.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I am deeply, deeply disappointed in all of you.
In the words of Squicky:
err...What?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Exactly.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Mary Cate is Amused.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Yes. Exactly.
I was about to post this very same comment to Squicky, then I decided that it was far too condescending.
And now we see Mr. Tom Davidson, the unrivaled master of the backhanded insult, descend to the level of mere condescension?
I am deeply, deeply disappointed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, see, it's funny when I do it.
I'm pretty sure it's all in the wrist.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I will be the arbiter of what is funny and what is not, thank you very much.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
" thing, and I'd hate for him to go back to it. I just don't think this particular comment of his was funny at all. (Since it's possible Tom has responded to this thread again in the time I took to type this, I apologize for referring to him in third person only.)